m^  ^wsaBoa^WKm^i 


s^upi^^^iiSi^- 


n.  \  '  ■  -^  ■•  '  .  ■';-i'4''',:^'v(Vi,., 


from  i^t  &i6rarg  of 

(J)rofe00or  ^dmuef  (giiffer 

ixK  ^emorg  of 

^recenfe^  fig 

fo  t^e  feifirarg  of 
(Princeton  2^§eo%tc<:tf  ^eminarg 


A 

VINDICATION 

OF 
CERTAIN  PASSAGES 


A   DISCOURSE, 

ON    OCCASION 

OF  THE  DEATH  OF  DR.  PRIESTLEY,  &c, 


BY  THOMAS  BELSHAnr. 
TO    WHICH    IS    ANNEXED 

THE  DISCOURSE 

ON  THE  DEATH  OF  DR.  PRIESTLEY. 

BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


BOSTON  : 

I'RINTED  AND  PUBLISHED  BY  T.  B.  \VAIT  i)'  Co. 
Sold  by  W.  Weil9....Court-stivet. 

1809. 


TO  THE  AMERICAN  READER. 

Soon  after  the  publication  of  Mr.  Belsham's 
Discourse  on  the  death  of  Dr.  Priestley,  the  Rev. 
John  Pye  Smith  addressed  to  the  author  a  volume 
of  Letters  containing  animadversions  on  some  pas- 
sages of  the  Discourse. 

As  these  Letters  have  been  lately  published  in 
this  country,  the  public  will  no  doubt  be  gratified 
by  an  opportunity  of  perusing  the  Discourse  which 
occasioned  them,  and  Mr.  Belsham's  Vindicatory 
reply  to  Mr.  Smith. 


A  VINDICATION  OF  CERTAIN  PASSAGES 
IN 

A  DISCOURSE, 

ON  OCCASION  OF  THE  DEATH  OF  DR.  PRIESTLEY  j 

AND 

A  DEFENCE 

OF  DR.  PRIESTLEY'S  CHARACTER  AND  WRITINGS, 
IN 

REPLY  TO  THE  ANIMADVERSIONS 

OF    THE 

REV.  JOHN  PYE  SMITH. 


IN  LETTERS  TO  A  FRIEND. 


BY  THOMAS  BELSHAM. 


^»Mii  e^yoti  ^t;A«T7ejW.£Vjjv.  Socrates  Hisu  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  8. 


BOSTON : 

PRINTED  BY  THOMAS  B.  WAIT  6-  €«. 

COURT-STREET. 

1809!" 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


1  HE  substance  of  these  Letters  has  appeared  in  the 
Uni\ersal  Theological  Magazine  ;  and  at  the  desire  of 
some  friends,  in  whose  judgment  the  author  places  con- 
fidence, they  are  now  re-printed  in  a  separate  form,  with 
some  corrections,  and  a  few  additional  notes  and  observa- 
tions. 

The  author  was  the  more  disposed  to  comply  in  this 
instance  witli  the  wishes  of  his  fi-iends,  because,  notwith- 
standing his  extreme  disUke  to  a  personal  theological 
controversy,  he  was  inclined  to  hope,  that  a  more  general 
circulation  of  these  Letters  might  contribute  to  communi- 
cate more  correct  ideas  of  the  tenets,  and  to  excite  a 
greater  abhorrence  of  the  spirit  of  Calvinism,  tlie  direct 
tendency  of  which  is  to  generate  hatred  both  of  God  and 
man,  and  which  represents  the  character  of  the  Divine 
Being  in  a  liglit  more  odious  than  that  of  the  voluptuous 
Jupiter,  of  tlie  sanguinary  and  ferocious  jNIolOch,  or  even 
of  its  own  imaginary,  malignant,  and  mischievous,  bwt  not 
altogether  omnipotent,  and  infinite.  Devil. 

The  author  having  been  educated  in  the  bosom  of  Cal- 
vinism, knows  sonietliiiig  of  the  views  and  feelings  of  .r 
genuine  Calvinist :  and  from  his  own  observation  and  ex- 
perience he  is  assured,  that  such  persons  are  more  deserv- 
ing of  compassion  than  of  censure.*     He  has  also  known 

•  Sec  Dr.  Prlistli  j's  account  of  his  own  fi-eliiigs  >\Iitn  Ik-  was  a  practi- 
cal CaU-inist.  D'ni-oiu-se  ou  Occasion  of  Dr.  Pritstley's  Deatli,  p.  18,  note. 
Hi:  tlifre  says,  "  I  had  occasionally  such  distress  of  mind,  as  it  is  not  in  my 
"  power  to  describe,  and  vhifh  I  still  look  back  upon  v,i\h  horror." 


'>  ADVERTISEME.Vl. 

among-  the  Calvinists  many  persons  of  great  vlety,  and 
Worth  of  character,  to  wiiich,  in  his  Discourse  on  the 
lamented  deatii  of  Dr.  Priestley,  lie  was  eager  to  bear  his 
testimony,  in  order  to  shew,  tluvt  wiiutever  he  thought  of 
the  system,  he  was  no  enemy  to  the  persons  of  tiiose  who 
profess  it.  If,  in  the  warmth  of  his  zeal  to  manifest  his 
cathoUcism,  he  has  inadvertently  over-stepped  the  limits 
of  perfect  correctness,  and  has  appeared  to  magnify  the 
t.Ucnts,  or  the  virtues,  of  Calvinists,  beyond  their  due 
proportion,  he  hopes  that  they  laiU  forgive  him  thit 
"wrong.  He  can  assure  them,  that  it  was  not  his  intention  to 
assert  that  Calvinists,  as  such,  were  wiser  or  better  than 
others,  whose  theoi'y  of  religion  approached  nearer  to  truth. 
Much  less  did  h£  mean  to  represent  the  excellence  of  their 
character  as  owing  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  calvinistic 
system.  If  Calvinists  are  (as,  no  doubt,  many  of  them  are) 
pious  towards  God,  and  benevolent  to  men,  it  must  be 
owing  to  some  powerful  countervailing  influences  which 
happily  check  the  baneful  tendency  of  their  principles  ; 
and  particularly  to  those  obvious  appearances  of  nature, 
and  those  plain  declarations  of  the  divine  benevolence  in 
the  scriptures,  which  excite  a  hope,  even  in  spite  of  them- 
selves, that  God  is  not  altogether  so  cruel,  nor  their  fellow- 
creatures  quite  so  detestable,  as  their  gloomy  system  would 
make  them  believe. 

Another  reason,  why  the  author  felt  himself  disposed 
to  give  these  Letters  a  more  extensive  circulation  was, 
that  it  not  only  afforded  him  an  opportunity  of  vindicating 
the  insulted  character  of  Dr.  Priestley,  but,  wliich  he 
apprehends  of  still  more  importance  to  the  public,  of  illus- 
trating distinctly  the  nature  of  his  new  and  unanswerable 
argument,  in  favour  of  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ, 
from  the  testimony  of  primitive  ecclesiastical  writers,  as 
stated  in  his  History  of  Early  Opinions,  an  argument  which 
is,  generally,  either  misunderstood,  or  misrepresented. 


ADVERTISEMEMT.  V 

The  author  of  the  Letters  to  which  these  are  intended 
as  a  reply,  has  mixed  up  his  severe  charges  of  ignorance,  of 
misrepresentation,  of  gross  error,  of  perfect  inadvertence, 
and  of  asserting  things  pi'ecisely  the  reverse  of  acknow- 
ledged facts,  or  in  other  words,  of  palpable  falsehood, 
with  much  of  the  forms  of  personal  civility  and  respect, 
almost  even  to  nausea.  In  this  particular,  the  author  of 
tiiese  Letters,  indignant  as  he  could  not  but  occasionally 
feel  at  the  groundless  charges  which  were  alleged,  and 
at  the  lofty  and  triumphant  tone  in  which  they  were 
often  pressed,  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  imitate  his 
correspondent.  But  while  he  considered  himself  as  jus- 
tified in  stating  plainly,  strongly,  and  pointedly,  the  futility 
of  the  writer's  arguments,  he  shall  regret,  if  he  has  in  any 
instance  been  betrayed  into  expressions  which  may  be 
thought  inconsistent  with  civility  and  good  manners.  He 
feels  no  ill-will  against  his  opponent,  for  whose  character 
he  entertains  a  sincere  respect,  and  who  must  be  allowed, 
in  his  animadversions,  to  have  discovered  no  small  portion 
of  ability,  and  controversial  dexterity.  Nevertheless,  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  avow,  that  the  design  of  these  Letters  is 
to  shew,  that  this  gentleman  has  undertaken  to  write  upon 
a  subject  which  he  has  not  sufficiently  studied  ;  that  he  has 
accumulated  charges  which  he  has  not  been  able  to  sub- 
stantiate ;  and  that  he  has,  without  sufficient  ground, 
attacked,  I  might  say  defamed,  the  characters  of  the 
illustrious  and  venerable  dead.  How  far  this  design  has 
been  accomplished,  the  judicious  and  attentive  reader 
must  decide. 

What  impression  these  animadversions  may  make  upon 
the  mind  of  the  gentleman  who  gave  occasion  to  them, 
it  is  not  for  the  author  to  judge.  But  if  that  gentleman 
should,  upon  mature  consideration,  be  convinced,  that  his 
strictures  are  erroneous,  and  his  charges  unfounded,  he 
will,  no  doubt,  feel  himself  bound  in  honour  and  duty  to 
retract,  and  modify  his  publication  accordingly.    At  any 


VI  ADVERTISEMENT. 

rate,  the  least  that  can  be  expected  from  him  is,  that  lie 
will  not,  if  convinced  of  his  mistake, persistm  bearing /alse 
witness  against  his  neighbour.  As  a  young  writer,  and  a 
young'  man,  it  will  be  no  disparagement  to  him  to  acknow- 
ledge an  error,  and  to  add  to  his  other  good  qualities  a 
proper  degree  of  self-diffidence.  This  will  induce  him  for 
the  future  to  pause  a  little,  and  attentively  to  survey  his 
ground,  before  he  alleges  unqualified  charges  of  ignorance, 
and  palpable  misrepresentations  of  plain  facts,  against 
persons  whose  means  of  information,  and  whose  character 
for  diligence,  perseverance,  impartiality,  and  accuracy  of 
research,  are,  at  least,  equal  to  his  own,  and  who  have, 
perhaps,  devoted  as  great  a  number  of  years  to  the  patient 
investigation  of  truth,  as  he  has  lived  in  the  world, 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  I. 

Pago. 
Vindication  of  the  Author's  statement  of  the  Calvinis- 

tic  systen) 1 

LETTER  II. 

Abhorrence  of  Calvlnlsim,  consistent  with  a  favourable 
opinion  of  many  who  hold  that  unscriptural  system. — 
Unjust  insinuations  repelled. — Concerning  the  per- 
sonal presence  of  Christ  with  his  Apostles  after  his 
ascension 10 

LETTER  UI. 

Origen's  character  defended. — Review  of  the  contro- 
versy between  Dr.  Priestley  and  Dr.  Horsley. — Ter- 
tullian's  unequivocal  testimony  to  the  Unitarianism  of 
the  great  body  of  unlearned  Christians 25 

LETTER  IV. 

Charge  of  inadvertency  and  gross  misrepresentation 
repelled. — Progress  of  error  concerning  the  person  of 
Christ  stated. — Misrepresentation  of  Dr.  Priestley's 
sentiments  corrected 40 

LETTER  V. 
The  charge  against  Dr.  Priestley's  character  stated  and 
repelled. — Dr.  Priestley  and  his  accuser  equally  mis- 
taken in  a  p.'issage  from  Chrysostom. — The  nature 
and  conduct  of  Dr.  I'liest ley's  argument  represented 
and  vindicated. — Conclusion 59 


CONTENTS. 

APPENDIX. 
Containing  an  Extract  from  a  publication  of  the  Hev. 
Theophilus  Lindsey,  which  expresses  the  judgment 
of  that  learned  writer,  concerning  the  issue  of  the 
controversy  between  Dr.  Priestley  and  Dr.  Horsley, 
and  concerning  the  importance  of  Dr.  Priestley's 
History  of  Early  Opinions  concerning  Jesus  Christ...  74 

POSTSCRIPT. 

Remarks  upon  the  alterations  and  concessions  in  the 
second  edition  of  the  Letters  to  Mr.  B - 79 


A  VINDICATION,  Set:. 


LETTER  I. 

\  indication  of  the  Author's  statement  of  t!ie  Calvuiistic  system. 
DEAR   SIR, 

X  HE  Rev.  John  Pye  Smith,  one  of  the  Tutors  of 
the  respectable  Academical  Institution  at  Homerton, 
has  lately  addressed  to  me  a  volume  of  Letters, 
containing  animadversions  upon  some  passages  in 
my  late  Discourse  upon  the  lamenteu  Death  of 
Dr.  Priestley ;  written  upon  the  whole  with  much 
personal  civility,  and  perhaps  with  as  much  candour 
as  the  spirit  of  his  theological  system  will  admit. 
The  truth  or  falsehood  of  that  system  I  am  not  now 
disposed  to  contest ;  but  some  of  the  author's  obser- 
vations appear  to  retjuirc  a  cursoiy  notice  :  especial- 
ly as  they  are  delivered  with  a  tone  of  authority,  an 
air  of  triumph,  and  a  parade  of  learning,  which  has 
a  tendency  to  impose  upon  ignorant  and  superficial 
readers. 

This  gentleman  distinctly  charges  me  with  mis- 
representing the  calvirjistic  system  :  His  words  are, 
"  1  never  yet  heard  of  the  Calvinist  who  would  adopt 
1 


2  LETTER  i: 

"  your  statement  as  his  own  creed*."  And  again, 
"  Such  men  as  Voltaire  and  Paine,  or  even  charac- 
"  ters  of  far  more  estimable  fame,  can,  with  all  the 
"  ease  imaginable,  by  the  combined  aid  of  miscon- 
"  ception,  perverse  mis-statement,  and  sparkling- 
"  witticisms,  so  twist  and  entangle  a  metaphysical  or 
"  moral  subject,  and  that  in  a  few  words,  or  sentences, 
"  as  to  require  many  pages  of  accurate  writing,  and 
"  much  labour  of  patient  reading,  to  unravel  the 
"  crossing  perplexities.  This  appears  to  me  to  be 
"  precisely  the  case  with  your  picture  of  Calvinismf." 
The  reader  will  smile  to  see  to  what  expressions 
this  pompous  description  applies.  My  words  are, 
"  The  doctrine  which  the  apostle  taught  was  the 
"  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.  ^'ery  remote  indeed 
"  from  that  system  which  in  modern  times  has  been 
•'  dignified  with  the  title  of  Gospel  Doctrine  ;  a 
"  system  which  teaches  that  all  mankind  are  doomed 
"  to  eternal  misery  for  Adam's  sin,  with  the  excep- 
"  tion  of  a  few  who  are  chosen  by  mere  good  plca- 
"•'  sure  to  everlasting  life|."  The  reason  why  my 
name  is  introduced  in  connection  with  those  of 
Voltaire  and  Paine,  is  sufficiently  obvious  to  all  who 
are  versed  in  the  arts  of  theological  controversy ; 
but  it  would  require  no  small  portion  of  intellectual 
perspicacity  to  discern  the  iireche  resemblance  be- 
tween the  plain  and  brief  statement  which  I  have 
made  of  calvinistic  doctrine,  almost  in  the  words 
of  its  own  symbols,  and  the  wisconcc/itio7i^  perverse 
vns-stateine7it.)  mid  sparkling  ivitticisms^  with  which 

*  Lettci-s  to  Mr.  B.  p.  16.  t  Ibid.  p.  13, 14. 

i  Fiiiit'i-al  Discourse  for  Dr.  Pi-icsllt  y,  p.  26. 


LETTER    I.  o 

these  champions  of  infidelity  arc  said  to  uvist  mid 
t'ntangle  a  moral  or  metajihysiical  isubject. 

My  generous  accuser,  however,  exculpates  me 
from  the  "  charge  of  intentional  misrepresentation," 
and  very  charitably  insinuates,  that  what  he  calls  my 
caricature  of  Calvinism  is  the  result  of  mere  igno- 
rance. Unfortunately,  I  cannot  avail  myself  of  this 
obliging  apology.  Having  been  educated  a  Calvinist, 
in  the  midst  of  Calvinists,  and  having  been  fully 
instructed  in  the  creeds  and  catechisms,  and  inodes 
of  worship  of  this  "  straitest  sect  of  our  religion," 
I  cannot  plead  ignorance  of  the  doctrines  which  I 
and  hundreds  more  were  taught,  and  believed. 

The  worthy  Remarker  next  proceeds  to  correct 
my  supposed  misconccjition^  by  stating,  in  form,  and 
as  one  having  authority,  in  his  second  Letter,  what 
those  "  sentiments  are,  which  in  their  aggregate" 
he  is  pleased  to  call  "  Calvinism,"  and  in  which,  he- 
pro  fesses  "  to  glory*."  And  truly.  Sir,  I  must 
acknowledge  that  1  was  not  a  little  surprised  at  the 
perusal  of  this  singular,  prolix,  and  mysterious  con- 
fession. Yet  if  this  reverend  gentleman,  who  does 
not  appear  to  be  deficient  either  in  understanding 
or  learning,  can,  at  this  lime  of  day,  seriously  believe 
all  that  he  sets  down  to  be  believed,  he  has  my  fret- 
consent,  and  much  may  it  contribute  to  his  edifica- 
tion. Far  be  it  from  me  to  wish  to  abridge  him  of 
a  single  article  of  his  capacious  faith,  or  to  deprive 
him  of  one  particle  of  his  glory.  The  only  question 
between  us  is,  whether  this  faith  be  truly  calvinistir 

*  I.cltiis  to  Mr.  B.  p.  16. 


*■  LETTER   I. 

And  to  this  the  worthy  author  himself  has  supplied 
the  proper  answer.  «  It  is  acknowledged,"  says  he, 
"  that  this  view  of  the  subject  is  different  from  that 
"  which  most  calvinistic  writers  have  given*."  This 
concession  is  sufficient,  and  precludes  all  further 
observation  upon  the  subject. 

Now,  Sir,  as  this  gentleman  has  been  pleased  to 
state  that  doctrine  as  Calvinism,  which  the  majority 
of  Calvinists  do  not  approve,  I  will  proceed  to  ex- 
hibit that  Calvinism  which  Calvinists  do  approve,  and 
the  belief  of  which  is  regarded  by  most  of  them  as 
essential  to  salvation.  And  in  order  to  this  I  shall 
not,  like  my  learned  correspondent,  have  recourse  to 
the  writings  of  the  Greek  or  the  Roman  classics ; 
nor  shall  I  inquire  whether  the  great  philosophers 
and  moralists  of  antiquity,  had  they  been  now  living, 
wovild  or  would  not  have  been  the  disciples  of  John 
Calvinf.  I  shall  not  even  make  my  principal  appeal 
to  the  Institutes  of  the  celebrated  reformer  himself, 
nor  yet  to  the  still  more  authentic  documents  of  the 
venerable  Synod  of  Dort  \.  For  the  sake  of  brevity, 
I  shall  bring  my  proofs  from  that  well-known,  and 
highly  approved  symbol  of  the  calvinistic  faith,  the 
Assembly's  Catechism,  which,  as  a  summaiy  of 
doctrine,  is  a  model  of  simplicty,  perspicuity,  and 

*  Letters  to  Mr.  B.  p.  22.    Note. 

t  See  Letters,  p.  33,  31.  Wlietlicr  tJic^e  pro.it  men  woiilrl,  as  my  Coi-- 
respomUnt  imaffines,  lia\e  bieii  c/mnneil  witli  the  CaUiiiistic  system,  I 
l^iiuot  pi-etend  to  say;  that  they  would  have  bi-eii  nafuhinlicd  at  it,  I  most 
Certainly  Ix-lieve. 

X  This  famous  Sj-nod  was  assembli  d  A.  D.  1619,  for  the  exjiress  purpose 
of  deciding  the  celebrated  quimmarlicular  eontroversy  between  tlie  Cal- 
Tinists  and  the  Anninians,  which  at  iliat  time  r.iged  in  Holland.  It  wa? 
attended  by  di-puties  from  most  of  (he  reformed  churches. 


LETTER   I.  5 

precision ;  and  which  used  formerly,  and  I  presume 
still  continues,  to  be  taught  with  great  assiduity, 
to  children  and  young  persons  in  the  calvinistic 
churches.  To  this  might  also  be  added,  if  neces- 
sary, the  Hymns  and  Spiritual  Songs  of  Dr.  Watts, 
the  crude  and  injudicious  compositions  of  iiis  ju- 
"venile  years,  the  publication  of  which,  it  is  well 
known,  was  the  subject  of  deep  regret  in  maturer 
life,  but  Avhich  are  to  this  day  used  in  the  public 
devotions  of  many  calvinistic  churches,  and  admired 
as  the  standard  of  sound  doctrine  and  of  a  devotional 
spirit :  and  which  in  fact  have  done  more  to  fix  the 
taint  of  Calvinism  in  young  and  impressible  minds, 
than  all  the  controversial  treatises  that  ever  were 
written.  I  believe  that  the  gentlenran  who  has  done 
me  the  favour  to  animadvert  upon  my  Sermon,  will 
not  object  to  the  authorities  to  which  I  appeal.  If 
he  does,  I  will  tell  him  plainly,  that  what  I  mean 
by  Calvinism  is  not  a  system  of  abstruse  subtleties, 
which  may  be  maint;vined  by  a  few  speculative  men, 
and  which  77iost  Calvinists  never  heard  of,  but  that 
code  of  doctrine  which  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands collect  froiTi  the  catechisms  which  they  learn, 
and  from  the  hymns  which  they  sing,  and  which 
they  ivaturally  suppose  to  be  the  sincere  opinions  of 
tliose  who  instruct  them  in  these  symbols,  and  who 
guide  them  in  their  devotions. 

The  Assembly's  Catechism  teaches,  in  answer 
to  the  seventh  question,  that,  "  the  decrees  of  God 
"  are  his  eternal  purpose  according  to  the  counsel 
"  of  his  will,  whereby  for  his  own  glory  he  hath 
"  fore-ordained  iv/iatsoever  comes  to  pass." 
*  1 


6  LETTER   I. 

From  this  it  evidently  follows,  that  the  fall  oF 
man  is  one  of  those  events  which  was  ordained  fov 
the  glory  of  God. 

We  are  further  taught,  in  reply  to  the  sixteenth 
question,  "  that  the  covenant  being  made  with  Adam, 
"  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  his  posterity ;  all 
"  mankind,  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  gene- 
<'  ration,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first 
"  transgi'ession."  Thus,  for  the  glory  of  God  all 
mankind  were  predestinated  to  sin  in  Adam,  and  to 
fall  with  him. 

This  celebrated  symbol  of  the  true  calvinistic 
faith  proceeds  to  teach  us,  in  answer  to  the  two 
succeeding  questions,  "  that  the  fall  brought  man- 
"  kind  into  an  estate  of  sin  and  miseiy:"  also,  that 
"  the  sinfulness  of  that  estate,  whereunto  man  fell, 
"  consists  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want 
"  of  original  righteousness,  and  the  corruption  of 
"  the  Avhole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called  ori- 
"  ginal  sin,  together  with  all  actual  trangressions 
"  which  flow  from  it."  Hence  it  follows,  that  God, 
foi-  his  own  glory,  has  fore -ordained  that  all  mankind 
shall  be  gxdlty  of  Adam's  first  sin,  together  with  all 
actual  transgressions  that  flow  from  it. 

Now  comes  the  bojme  bouclie.  The  question  next 
proposed  is,  "  What  is  the  misery  of  that  estate, 
*'  whereinto  man  fell  r"  And  the  answer  to  it  is  in 
these  memorable  words:  ".;/./.  mankind  by  the  fall 
*'  lost  communion  vvilh  God,  are  under  his  wrath 
*'  AND  CURSE,  and  so  made  liable  to  all  the  miseries 
"  of  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  pjiys  of 

'•  HELL   FOR  EVER.'' 


LETTER   I.  7 

That  is,  God  having  from  all  eternity  fore- 
ordained for  liis  own  glory  that  all  mankind  shall 
be  guilty  of  Adam's  first  sin,  for  his  own  glory  he 
hath  further  fore-ordained,  that  by  this  fall  they 
shall  lie  under  his  wrath  and  curse,  and  be  made 
liable  to  the  pains  of  hell  for  ever  ! !  I 

To  add  to  the  horror  of  the  picture,  and  to 
accumulate  insult  upon  injury,  it  is  further  asked 
in  the  twentieth  question,  "  Did  God  leave  all  man- 
"  kind  to  perish  in  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery  ?" 
To  which  the  answer  subjoined  is,  that  "  God  out 
"  of  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity,  elected 
"  SOME  to  everlasting  life." 

What  then  is  God?  It  is  truly  replied,  in  one 
of  the  most  concise  and  comprehensive  definitions 
which  was  ever  given,  in  answer  to  the  fourth  quesr 
lion  of  this  Catechism  :  '^  God  is  a  spirit,  infinite, 
eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  his  being,  wisdom, 
power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth. 

Bur  what  is  the  God  of  Calvinism  ?  A  gloomy 
arbitrary  tyrant,  a  malignant  onmipotent  demon. 

Therefore  the  God  of  Calvinism  is  not  the 
TRUE  GOD,  is  not  the  God  of  Christians,  is  not  the 
God  and  Father  of  Jesus,  is  not  that  God  whose 
name  is  love. 

This,  Sir,  is  the  system  that  I  am  accused  of 
having  caricatured.  It  is  the  system  concerning 
which  I  have  pronounced,  and  1  now  solemnly  re- 
peat the  charge,  that  it  is  "  a  tremendous  doctrine, 
"  which,  had  it  really  been  taught  by  Christ  and  his 
"  apostles,  their  gospel  might  truly  have  been  de- 
"  nominated,  not  the  doctrine  of  peace  and  good 


»  LETTER   I. 

"  will,  but  a  messat^e  of  Mrath  and  injustice,  of 
"  terror  and  dispair."  I  have  spoken  of  it,  and 
while  life  and  breath  and  intellect  remain,  I  shall 
ever  speak  of  it  as  "  a  rigorous,  a  gloomy,  and  a 
"  pernicious  system,"  as  "  full  of  horror,  as  the  very 
"  extravagance  of  error,"  and  as  "  a  mischievous 
"  compound  of  impiety  and  idolatry." 

Predestination,  absolute  arbitrary  predestina- 
tion, the  predestination  of  sovte  to  eternal  life,  and 
of  the  many  to  eternal  misery,  from  mere  good 
pleasure,  and  for  the  glory  of  God,  is  the  very  soul 
of  Calvinism.  To  affect  to  evade  the  horror  of  the 
doctrine,  by  pretending  that  the  non-elect  were  only 
left^  and  not  doomed^  Vo  perish  ;  or,  that  they  were 
predestinated  to  punishment,  because  they  were 
predestinated  to  sin ;  or,  that  being  the  descendants 
of  a  fallen  pair,  they  were  born,  that  is,  in  other 
words,  that  God  made  them  with  corrupt  natures, 
and  therefore  under  his  wrath  and  curse;  or  lastly, 
but  not  least  remarkable,  that  sin,  like  darkness,  is 
a  mere  defect*,  that  is,  a  nonentity,  and  therefore 
meritorious  of  eternal  punishment ;  all  this  is  trifling 
and  puerile  in  the  extreme.  The  daring  and  vigor- 
ous mind  of  the  reformer  of  Geneva  disdained  such 
pitiful  evasions ;  and  contends,  in  the  most  explicit 
language,  for  the  doctrine  of  absolute  reprobalionf. 

»  "  All  positive  e\istcnce  must  be  the  oljtct  of  the  creating  and  sustain- 
"  in^  power  ol'  Goil,  the  Iramer  ofall  tilings,  and  <)y  » lioin  all  tilings  consist. 
"  Sin  is  prccisily  tlie  reverse  of  this, — it  is  a  fauli,  n  deUtt,  a  failiii-e,  an 
"  inipcrriction."  Sic  n  Sermon  on  the  Divinr  Glor\  d;splayeil  in  the  Per- 
mission of  Sin,  pa^  6,  by  the  Author  of  the  l.ettrrs  to  Mr  B. 

1"  Si  noil  possumus  ralioiiem  ass:u;nare  cur  siios  mis;  ricordia  dig;netur  niii 
quoiiinin  ila  illi  placet,  iiequc  etuuii  i"  aliis  reprobaiulis  aliudhabebimu* 
luain  ejus  voluntateiu.'  Calvin,  Inst.  lib.  iii.  cap.  Jwii.  sec.  11. 


LETTER   1.  9 

A  man,  therefore,  who  denies  arbitraiy  predestina- 
tion, iiiay,  notwithstanding,  be  a  wise  man,  a  learned 
man,  a  good  man,  and  a  true  Christian ;  but,  it  is 
most  certain,  that  he  has  no  right  to  call  himself  a 
Calviuist. 

In  my  next  Letter  I  shall  proceed  to  justify  the 
charges  which  I  have  alleged  against  the  calvinistic 
system,  and  likewise  to  notice  some  other  observa- 
tions of  my  reverend  opponent. 

In  the  mean  time  I  am, 

Dear  Sir,  85c.  Sec. 


LETTER  II. 


Abliorrence  of  Cal\  inisni,  consistent  w  iili  a  favourable  upiiiion  ofmany  wUo 
hold  ihat  uiisLriiitiival  sjsiuii. — U' just  iiisimiatious  rtpelled.—Coiici  ril- 
ing the  personal  presence  of  Christ  with  Lis  Apostles  after  lijs  ascension' 

DEAR    SIR, 

I  FLATTER  myself  that  I  stand  completely  exone- 
rated from  the  charge  of  having  either  intentionally, 
or  ignorantly,  misrepresented  the  calvinistic  system. 
Calvinism  is  not  a  term  of  indefinite  signification, 
like  the  cant  phrase  evangelical,  which  commonly 
means  nothing,  but  the  opinions  of  the  men  who  use 
it.  Calvinism  expresses  a  system  clearly  defined, 
and  accurately  exhibited  in  the  Institutes  of  Calvin, 
in  the  Decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  in  this 
country,  in  the  Assembly's  Catechism,  in  which  the 
children  of  Calvinists  are  generally  instructed,  and 
the  sense  of  which  is  sufficiently  ascertained. 

Calvinism  teaches  that  the  great  Creator,  by  an 
arbitrary  decree,  and  for  his  own  glory,  dooms  mil- 
lions of  his  creatures  to  eternal  misery  for  Adam's 
sin.  This,  if  true,  would  unciuestionably  have  been 
a  message  of  wrath  and  injustice,  of  terror  and 
despair. — The  fundamental  principle  of  Calvinism 
is,  that  God  is  a  tyrant.  This  is  impious. — Calvinism 
teaches  that  God  would  not  save  the  number,  which 


LETTER  II.  11 

from  mere  good  pleasure  he  had  elected  to  everlast- 
ing life,  till  a  person  equal  to  himself  in  power  and 
glory,  had  satisfied  his  justice  by  bearing  his  wrath. 
This  is  polytheism  and  absurdity. — Calvinism,  con- 
sistently indeed  with  itself,  renders  to  this  supposed 
second  person,  a  homage  equal  to  the  first.  This 
is  idolatry ;  it  is  Avorshipping  as  God,  a  mere  crea- 
ture of  the  imagination. — Cal' inism  is  a  system 
replete  with  horror:  for  the  -^hance  against  every 
individual  is,  that  he  is  in  the  number  of  those  who, 
for  Adam's  sin,  are  doomed  to  the  eternal,  inevitable, 
wrath  and  curse  of  the  Almighty. — Calvinism  there- 
fore is  a  very  pernicious  system.  The  natural  and 
direct  tendency  of  Calvinism,  is  to  lead  men  to  think 
of  their  Maker  with  indignation  and  abhorrence,  and 
to  curse  their  existence :  it  often  generates  presump- 
tion, arrogance,  and  malignity,  in  those  who  fancy 
themselves  the  elect  favourites  of  God :  It  excites 
much  causeless  anxiety  and  painful  apprehension 
in  the  minds  of  many  who  are  sincerely  virtuous, 
and  embitters  tlieir  lives  with  tormenting  terrors. 
In  some  cases  it  has  driven  men  to  despair,  and 
distraction,  and,  probably,  even  to  suicide. — Cal- 
vinism, therefore,  may  be  justly  represented  as  ex- 
travagant and  erroneous  in  the  extreme. 

Th.\t  professed  Calvinists  should  approve  of  this 
representation  of  their  favourite  system,  is  not  to  be 
expected.  If  they  saw  it  in  the  light  in  which  it  is 
here  stated,  they  would,  no  doubt,  renounce  it  with 
abhorrence.  To  them  it  seems  "these  sentiments 
appear  the  voice  of  God,  and  the  perfection  of  rea- 


12  LETTER  II. 

"  son,  harmony,  and  moral  beauty*."     Let  the  im- 
partial reader  judge  between  us. 

In  my  discourse  upon  the  death  of  Dr.  Priestley, 
I  have  remarked,  that  it  had  been  the  happiness  of 
that  eminently  great  and  good  man,  to  meet  among 
Christians  of  the  calvinistic  denomination,  "  with 
"  some  of  the  wisest  and  best  characters  that  he 
"  had  ever  known."  From  hence  my  worthy  Cor- 
respondent infers,  that  a  system  approved  by  such 
persons  "  must  be  presumed  to  have,  at  least,  some 
"  inviting  colours  of  evidence  and  truth,"  and  that 
it  would  be  "  strange  indeed,  if  what  they  held 
■"  should  be  the  extravagance  of  errort."  But  this 
is  an  objection  of  little  weight.  Nothing  is  more 
common  than  for  men,  in  other  respects  eminently 
learned  and  wise,  to  entertain  theological  opinions, 
the  most  extravagant  and  absurd.  Pascal,  and 
Fenelon,  were  greatly  distinguished,  both  for  their 
talents  and  their  virtues ;  and  yet,  they  were  both 
zealous  for  popeiy  in  its  grossest  forms.  The  great 
reformer  Luther,  was  a  warm  advocate  for  the  real 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  consecrated  elements,  in 
the  absurdity  of  which  doctrine,  there  is  but  a  shade 
of  difference  from  that  of  transubstantialion  itself. 
Lxlius  ard  Faustus  Socinus,  imd  the  other  Polish 
Unitarians,  whose  names  rank  high  amongst  the 
learned  and  the  liberal  cxj)ositors  of  the  scriptures, 
believed  that  a  mere   human  being,  a  man   like 

•  l,(tt(  i-s.  p.  in.  >[y  CoiT.sporidint  applies  tliisc  epitluis  to  liU  <)\»n 
>iypotli<!«is.  The  Assembly  of  Divim  s  liad  the  same  (rood  opinion,  no  itotiHf, 
of  ihcir  system,  wliicli  is  tmc  Calvinism. 

t  Letten.  p.  31.  32. 


LETTER  11.  i.p 

liiemselves,  was  exalted  to  a  supremacy  over  angels 
and  arch-angels ;  that  the  government  of  the  uni- 
Aerse  was  delegated  to  him,  and  that  he  was  entitled 
to  religious  worship  as  the  representative  of  God 
himself;  a  notion  so  irrational-and  unscriptural,  that 
as  Dr.  Price  justly  observes,  "  Athanasianism  itself 
"  contains  nothing  that  is  more  extravagant*."  Nor 
do  we  need  to  have  recourse  to  former  times  for 
examples  of  this  kind.  Who  doubts  the  talents  or 
the  learning  of  the  present  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  ? 
Yet  he  gravely  teaches  us,  in  a  Discourse  which  he 
has  lately  published,  that  hell  is  a  subterraneous 
region  divided  into  two  apartments.  That  one  of 
these  apartments  is  indeed  a  place  "of  torment  for 
wicked  spirits :  but  that  the  other,  which  though  a 
Jiri-son.,  is  also  called  a  Jiaradisc^  is  the  receptacle  of 
pious  souls,  who  are  there  in  safe  kcc^iinc^  till  the 
resurrection.  This  learned  prelate  further  informs 
us,  that  Jesus,  after  he  had  been  crucified,  descend- 
ed into  hell ;  not,  as  we  have  lately  been  informed, 
from  very  high  authoi'ity,  to  shew  himself  there  bodij 
and  soul,  in  order  to  terrify  the  devils,  caul  the 
damned^,  but  that  he  might  comfort  the  souls  of 
the  antediluvian  penitents,  who,  though  already  in 
paradise, "  had  peculiar  apprehensions  of  themselves 

*  Price's  Sermons,  p.  ISO,  151. 

1"  See  Freyliiii^liausen's  Abstract  of  the  Cliribtian  Rilijjion,j).  50.  Tliis 
curious  Tract,  editid,  as  it  is  niiiiourtd,  h\  a  ilistinguislu'il  prelate,  is  asserted 
l)y  tlie  editor,  to  stand  very  liifjli  in  tlie  good  0|iini(>n  of  the  first  female  per- 
sonage in  the  kingdom,  by  v\liosc  order  it  was  translated  into  English  foril)^ 
use  of  lier  illustrious  daughters. 


14  LETTER   II. 

as  marked  victims  of  divine  vengeance*."  What 
can  be  more  extravagant  than  such  suppositions  as 
these,  or  more  inconsistent  with  the  scripture  doc- 
trine of  the  state  of  the  dead  ?  It  follows  then  that 
men  may  be  very  wise,  veiy  learned,  and  very  good, 
and  yet,  in  their  theological  opinions  they  may  fall 
into  the  very  extravagance  of  error. 

The  reason  of  this  is  sufficiently  obvious.  The 
human  intellect  is  too  limited  to  comprehend  every 
thing :  and  men  who  are  the  best  informed  upon 
subjects  to  which  they  have  directed  their  attention, 
may  be  as  ignorant  as  children  upon  other  questions : 
and  in  no  case  are  men  more  liable  to  err,  than  in 
their  theological  opinions.  There  are  many  who 
regard  religion  as  a  mystery  beyond  the  province  of 
reason  :  there  are  many  who  are  content  with  taking 
every  thing  upon  trust :  there  are  many  who  have 
neither  opportunity  nor  inclination  to  inquire :  there 
are  many  who  are  speculativ'e  but  not  practical 
believers,  who  assent  to  a  form  of  words  but  with- 
out examining  the  ideas :  there  ai'e  many  whose 
interest  it  is  to  profess  the  popular  system  of  belief, 
and  whose  judgments  may  be  more  influenced  by 
this  consideration  than  they  are  themselves  aware  ; 
there  ai'e  many  who  think  it  criminal  to  doubt  or  to 
in([uire  at  all ;  and  there  are  many  whose  prejudices 
are  so  firmly  rivetted,  that  the  most  demonstrative 
arguments  can  make  nO  impression  upon  their 
understandings. 

•  Bisliopof'St.  Asaph's  Sermon  on  the  Descent  of  Christ  into  Hell.  \Wioli 
of  the  two  learned  i>relatcs  lias  the  best  iiifunnatiou  upon  this  mysterious 
suhject,  does  not  appear. 


LKTTKR   II.  15 

I  AM  not  however  one  of  those  "who  hold,  that 
erroi'  is  a  matter  of  indifTerence.  I  readily  admit, 
that  great  errors  may  be  consistent  with  great  good- 
ness of  heart ;  that  the  mischievous  tendency  of 
particuhir  errors  may  be  in  a  great  degree  coun- 
teracted by  good  principles  and  virtuous  habits ; 
that  speculative  error,  like  speculative  truth,  may 
sometimes  lose  its  proper  effect,  by  practical  in- 
attention to  it :  and  that,  sometimes,  one  error  may 
counteract  the  baneful  influence  of  another.  Never- 
theless, error,  upon  subjects  of  great  importance, 
in  proportion  as  it  prevails  and  becomes  a  practical 
principle,  contaminates  the  mind,  and  is  productive 
of  pernicious  consequences.  This  is  evident  in  the 
case  of  persecutors,  who  often  act  under  the  in- 
fluence of  erroneous  principles  and  a  misguided 
conscience  ;  and  it  is  surely  sufficiently  obvious,  that 
the  calvinistic  system  has  a  very  dangerous  ten- 
dency. A  thorough  practical  Calvinist,  if  he  be 
not  malignant,  must  inevitably  be  unhappy.  It  is 
therefore  the  indispensable  duty  of  the  friends  of 
truth  and  virtue  and  pure  Christianity,  to  enter  their 
grave  and  firm  protest  against  pernicious  errors, 
and  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  purity  of  the  chris- 
tian faith. 

I  HAVE  said,  that  to  an  early  education  in  the 
rigid  sect  of  Calvinists^  Dr.  Priestly  was  indebted 
for  some  of  his  best  principles,  and  his  most  valu- 
able and  permanent  religious  impressions.  Here 
my  worthy  correspondent  triumphs  in  my  s\ipposcd 
inconsistency,  as  if  I  had  maintained  that  to  an  early 
education  in  the  extravagance  of  error,  in  a  mis- 


i6  LETTEK   n. 

chicvous  compound  of  impiety  and  idolatrj',  my-' 
revered  friend  was  indebted  for  some  of  his  best 
principles*.  If  indeed  I  had  maintained  that  Dr. 
Priestley  owed  his  best  principles  and  impression's 
to  an  early  education  in  the  pcculun-  doctrines  of 
Calvinism,  the  triumph  might  have  been  just ;  but 
as  the  case  stands,  had  this  gentleman  allowed  him- 
self to  reflect,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  sect  is  one  thing, 
and  its  didcipUtic  another,  and  that  all  sects  hold 
many  important  practical  /irincijdes  in  connection 
witii  their  own  peculiar  tenets,  he  would  have  seen 
that  he  needed  not  to  have  felt  the  anxiety  which 
he  expresses,  for  the  credit  and  consistency  of  the 
author  of  the  Elements  of  the  Philosophy  of  the 
Human  Mindf.  Dr.  Priestley,  educated  among 
serious  Calvinists,  v/as  instructed  in  many  valuable 
religious  principles,  and  formed  to  many  virtuous 
habits ;  and  to  this  may  be  ascribed,  in  a  consider- 
able degree,  the  distinguished  excellence  "of  his 
iTioral  character.  All  this  may  be  true,  and  yet  the 
peculiar  tenets  of  the  calvinistic  system  may  be 
erroneous  in  the  extreme. 

Having  thus,  I  trust,  sufficiently  justified  both 
my  censures  of  the  doctrines,  and  my  concessions 
to  the  talents  and  virtues  of  those  who  maintain  the 
gloomy  creed  of  the  Geneva  reformer ;  I  shall  now 
proceed  briefly  to  notice,  Mlliat  appears  to  me  parti- 

*  Lottcn-s,  p.  53,  5-J. 

t  "  To  the  autlior  of  Elcincnts  of  the  Ptiilosoiiliy  of  the  MimI,  I  spcuk 
••  « itli  ilefcivnte :  but  I  confess  there  .appears  to  me  siicli  a  want  of  toni- 
'■  patihilitj  in  the  teniTS  of  tliis  proposition,  as  totally  to  dcsti-oy  «sscl>'.'' 
I.i  iteri,  p.  51. 


LETTER  n.  .17 

cularly  worthy  of  remark,  in  the  remaming  stric- 
tures of  my  respectable  correspondent. 

This  gentleman  judiciously*  declines  to  press 
the  favourite  argument,  of  the  superior  sanctity  of 
Calvinism  and  Calvinists,  to  Unitarianism  and  Uni- 
tarians. Had  he  determined  otherwise,  he  might 
have  been  assured  that  I  should  have  left  him  an 
open  and  unmolested  course.  Unitarianism  stands 
upon  the  immoveable  foundation  of  the  christian 
scriptures,  which  teach  us  explicitly,  that  Jesus 
was  "  a  MAN,  approved  of  God  by  miracles,  and 
"  wonders,  and  signs,"  and  which  never  even  seem 
to  represent  him  as  a  being  of  a  superior  order, 
except  in  a  few  detached  and  obscure  passages,  in 
most  of  which,  to  give  plausibility  to  the  argument, 
figurative  expressions  are  interpreted  in  a  literal 
sense.  Here  the  Unitarians  feel  themselves  upon 
firm  ground  :  they  have  not  a  doubt  that  their  faith 
concerning  the  person  of  their  honoured  master,  is 
the  same  with  that  of  Jesus  himself,  and  of  his  apos- 
tles, who  knew  and  conversed  with  him.  All  other 
evidence  in  this  case  they  regard  as  trifling,  and  as 
only  tending  to  divert  the  attention  from  the  main 
question.  To  superior  saintahiji  they  make  no  pre- 
tension. But  they  trust  that  their  character  upon 
the  Avhole,  will  not  be  found  unworthy  of  their 
christian  principles,  and  that  it  will  not  suffer  in 
comparison  with  that  of  the  most  sanctimonious  of 
their  accusers.  And  in  the  habitual  practice  of 
virtue  and  piety,  though  conscious  of  much  impcr- 

*  I^ettirs.  p.  S3.  54. 

*3 


18  LETTER  ir. 

lection,  they  humbly  and  cheei'fuUy  rely  upon  the 
unchangeable  mercy  of  an  infinitely  wise  and  bene- 
volent Creator,  \yithout  any  regard  to  the  vniin- 
Iclligible  notions  of  vicarious  suffering,  or  imputed 
righteousness. 

For  the  reason  ^yhich  I  have  assigned  above,  I 
feel  as  little  inclination  to  follow  my  zealous  corres- 
pondent through  his  triumphant  argument,  in  the. 
fifth  letter,  from  the  missionary  zeal  of  the  Trinita- 
rians, in  which  Pharisees,  Jesuits  and  Mahometans 
stand  at  least  upon  equal  ground  with  them.  It  is 
an  obvious  ftxt,  that  in  all  ages,  there  have  been 
zealots  for  error,  as  well  as  advocates  for  truth  ;  and 
it  has  too  generally  happened,  that  the  former  have 
been  more  successful  in  perverting,  than  the  latter 
in  the  instruction  of  mankind.  I  am,  however,  far 
from  wishing  to  detract  from  the  merit  of  those, 
who  have  exerted  themselves  in  propagating  what 
I  judge  to  be  a  corrupt  Christianity.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  m.uch  good  has  been  done ;  much  valu- 
able practical  truth  having  been  mixed  with  a  consi- 
c^.erable  portion  of  speculative  error.  I'he  stupendous 
machinery  of  a  corrupt  Christianity  is  far  more  likely 
to  seize  the  imagination,  and  to  rouse  the  feelings 
of  a  Greenlander  or  a  Ilotlentat,  than  the  beautiful 
simplicity  of  christian  truth.  Thus  the  wisdom  of 
Divine  Providence  brings  good  out  of  evil,  and  gra- 
dually prepares  the  way  for  the  universal  prevalence 
of  a  pure  and  rational  faith,  by  adapting  the  means 
of  information  among  the  converted  heathen,  to  their 
growing  capacity  for  intellectual  and  moral  improve- 


LETTER   ir.'  19 

mcnts*.  Ill  ihc  mean  time,  we  enter  our  protest 
agiunst  estimating  the  truth  of  a  doctrine,  by  the 
zeal  which  is  discovered  in  the  propagation  of  it. 

Hard  indeed  is  the  lot  of  the  unfortunate  Uni- 
tarians !  Whatever  they  do — Avhatcver  they  omit, 
they  are  always  in  the  wrong.  They  are  always 
either  too  hot,  or  too  cold  :  benumbed  in  the  frigid, 
or  scorching  in  the  torrid  zone  of  Christianity.  If 
they  are  active  in  defending  or  propagating  what 
they  believe  to  be  truth,  their  proselyte  zeal  exposes 
them  to  the  scorn  of  the  infidel,  the  censure  of  the 
timid  and  the  /irudent,  and  to  the  fury  of  the  bigot ; 
if  they  are  silent,  they  are  reproached  as  indifferent 
and  lukewarm,  and  as  doing  nothings  iiothing  at  all\^ 
to  promote  the  christian  doctrine. — "  But  wisdom 
"  will  be  justified  of  her  children." 

My  worthy  opponent  :j:  disapproves  of  what  I  have 
said,  concerning  the  spirit  of  Paul  when  a  pei'secu- 
tor :  but  I  am  not  conscious  that  I  have  advanced  any 
thing  upon  this  subject  stronger  than  the  apostle's 
own  expressions  If,  that  he  was  exceedingly  r,i  l 
against  them  ;  or  those  of  his  faithful  historian,  thu 
he  breathed  out  threatening  and  slaughter  against 
the  disciples  of  the  Lord  II. 

I  HAVE  also  presumed  to  suppose  that  the  apostle 
James  might,  like  Peter  and  Barnabas,  have  given 

•  "  Tile  imjmiity  of  maiikiuil,"  says  Dr.  Haitlty,  vol.  ii.  p.  .T72,  "  is  too 
"  g:i-oss  to  unite  at  once  with  the  sti-ict  purity  of  tlic  gospel.  The  Uoinaii 
"  empire  lir.t,  and  the  Goths  and  Vaudals  aftenvaitis,  i-e«|uircd,  as  one  may 
"  say,  some  supei-slitions  and  idolatries  to  be  mixed  with  the  christian  re- 
"ligion,  else  they  conlil  not  have  been  eonvertid  at  all." 

t  '•  Unitarians  w'.tli  all  their  boast,  etc.  have  dune  NO'l'HING,  NOTHING 
•'AT  ALL."    Letters,  p.  75. 

\  ieltcTs,  p.  61.  5  AcU  xxvi.  U.  \  Acts  i.v.  1. 


2&  LETTER    II. 

rather  too  much  countenance  to  the  zealots,  who  are 
said  to  have  gone  from  him*,  and  to  have  disturbed 
the  peace  of  the  church  at  Antioch :  but  I  am  in- 
formed, no  doubt,  upon  competent  authority,  that 
the  contrary  is  "  the  more  reasonable  conjecturetj" 
and  I  have  no  objection  to  it,  for  I  have  no  quarrel 
•with  St.  James. 

"  How  feebly  supported,"  says  my  dexterous  cor- 
respondent, "  or  rather  how  completely  destitute  of 
"  all  support  is  any  conclusion  from  these  premises 
"  against  the  infallible  certainty  of  apostolic  doc- 
trine |."  Now  the  fact  is,  that  I  never  did  assert, 
or  insinuate  any  thing  against  the  infallible  certainty 
of  that  doctrine,  which  the  apostles  were  commis- 
sioned to  publish,  but  have  always  maintained,  that 
they  were  fully  informed  upon  that  subject,  though 
they  might  err  in  other  cases.  But  we  polemics 
are  fully  apprized  of  the  use  of  a  seasonable  inuendo. 

The  worthy  letter-writer  has  exhausted  a  pro- 
fusion of  leai'ning  in  the  beginning  of  his  sixth 
letter,  to  prove  that  the  zealots  who  opposed  Paul 
were  Jewish  believers  and  Unitarians.  The  fact  is- 
so  obvious,  that  it  hardly  seems  to  require  so  long 
and  laboured  a  proof.  That  they  were  Jewish  be- 
lievers, is  notorious  from  their  zeal  for  the  cere- 
monial law  :  and  that  they  were  Unitarians  is  highly 
probable,  because  neither  the  arian,  nor  the  trinita- 
rian  heresies  had  then  been  introduced.  Besides, 
the  only  offence  with  which  these  zealots  are  charged 
by  the  apostle  is,  their  insisting  upon  the  indispensa- 
ble necessity  of  conformity  to  tlie  ceremonial  law : 

*  Gal.  u.  11, 12.  +  Lettcj-s,  p.  80.  t  Eetters>  p.  87. 


LETTER  ir.  21 

but  if  they  had  also  been  guilty  of  infringing  upon 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God,  which, 
as  Jews,  they  were  not  likely  to  do,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  apostle  would  have  animadverted 
upon  them  with  far  greater  severity.  But  does  this 
gentleman,  who  favours  me  with  his  correspondence, 
"  or  the  judicious  arid  tenifierate  divine.^"  whose  words 
he  quotes*,  really  think  that  the  modern  Unitarians 
are  "the  obsequious  disciples"  of  judaizing  zealots, 
and  answerable  for  all  their  malignant  opposition  to 
the  apostle,  because  they  agree  with  them,  and  with 
him,  in  the  belief  of  the  unity  of  God,  and  the  proper 
humanity  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  What  the  design  of  these 
gentlemen  might  be,  in  this  strange  and  unjust  in- 
sinuation, they  best  can  tell ;  but  I  will  not  affront 
their  understandings  so  far  as  to  suppose,  that  they 
could  themselves  give  the  least  credit  to  it.  As 
justly  might  the  modern  Baptists  be  made  answer- 
able for  the  extravagancies  and  crimes  of  John  of 
Leyden. 

Permit  me,  sir,  before  I  conclude,  to  add  a  few- 
strictures  upon  a  remarkable  passage  at  the  close 
of  this  gentleman's  sixth  letter.  When  our  Lord 
was  about  to  withdraw  his  visible,  sensible  presence, 
and  to  ascend,  as  he  expresses  it,  to  his  Father  and 
his  Godf,  he  promised,  that  he  would  be  with  his 
apostles  always  to  the  end  of  the  world  :t: ;  or,  as  I 
would  render  it,  with  Bishop  Pearce,  and  Mr.  Wake- 
field, to  the  end  of  the  age||,  that  is,  of  the  Jewish 

*  Letters,  p.  82.  f  John  xx.  17.  \  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 

|l  Matt,  xxviii.  20,  translated  l)y  Mr.  WakcficliI :  "  I  will  be  with  jon  cdii- 
tiimnlly  di  ihi;  end  of  ibe  ac;c."    'I'his  learned  writer  refeiN  to  the  i)aralli  ? 


22  LETTER   II. 

dispensation.  Agreeably  to  this  promise,  he  not 
only  communicated  to  them  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the 
day  of  pentecost*,  bvit  he  seems  upon  some  special 
occasions,  more  or  less  frequently,  to  have  appeared 
visibly  to  them.  He  was  seen  by  Stephen  imme- 
diately before  his  martyrdomf.  He  appeared  to 
Paul  on  his  way  to  Damascus  |.  He  afterwards, 
probably  in  Arabia||,  communicated  to  this  apostle, 
a  distinct  and  complete  discovery  of  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  gave  him  a 
commission  to  preach  it  to  the  gentiles.  Either 
then,  or  at  some  other  time,  he  made  known  to  the 
apostle  the  institution  of  the  eucharistH.  Paul  like- 
wise saw  and  conversed  with  Christ  in  the  temple 
at  Jerusalemft-  And  it  seems  probable  that  he  was 
honoured  with  another  interview  with  his  master, 
to  which  he  refers,  in  his  second  epistle  to  the 
Coi'inthians  \\.  And  in  many  passages  in  his  epis- 
tles, he  represents  himself  as  acting  in  the  concerns 
of  his  mission,  under  the  immediate  direction  of 
Christ|)||.  These  considerations  appear  to  me  abun- 
dantly to  justify  the  assertion,  that  Jesus  was  gene- 
rally present  with  the  apostle,  and  that  he  occasion- 
ally appeared  to  liim.   And  when  Jesus  was  sensibly 

passage  in  Mark  x\-i.  17, 19.  "  So  then  (he  adds)  our  Loi-d  would  continue 
"  with  them  in  working  miracles  to  the  end  of  tlie  age."  If  our  Lord  was 
with  them  in  working  miracles,  he  must  be  personally  present,  as  no  Being 
tan  act  where  he  does  not  exist.  But  1  donbt  whether  the  idea  of  a  per- 
sonal presence  of  Christ  occurred  lo  this  celebrated  author.  See  upon  this 
subject  of  the  personal  presence  and  agency  of  Christ  during  the  apostolii 
age,  the  venerable  TheophiUis  Lindsey's  Sequel  to  his  Apologj-,  p.  72,  85. 

*  Acts  ii.  t  Acts  vii.  54,  55.  t  Acts  ix. 

U  Gal.  i.  11,  12,  17.  %  I  Cor.  xi.  23.  ft  Acts  xxii.  17,21. 

It  2  Cor.  xij.  9, 10.  Hn  Phil.  xi.  \9,  24.    1  Tim.  i.  13.    1  Thess.  iii.  ]"!. 


LETTER  n.  23 

present,  there  could  be  no  more  impropriety  in  the 
apostle's  stating  to  him  the  feelings  and  desires  of 
Ills  mind,  than  there  was  in  conversing  with  him 
during  his  personal  ministry.  What  there  is  either 
mysterious  or  ridiculous  in  all  this,  I  am  at  a  loss 
to  conceive.  My  ingenious  correspondent,  how- 
ever, holds  it  up  as  an  inexplicable  mystery*,  and 
is  pleased  to  be  very  jocular  upon  the  subject.  And 
to  heighten  the  joke  he  propounds  some  hard  ques- 
tions, concerning  the  locomotive  powers  of  the 
glorified  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  and  the  mode  of 
its  presence  and  action,  to  puzzle  the  poor  Unita- 
rianst,  and  to  raise  a  laugh  at  their  expense. 

For  my  own  part,  being  too  dull  to  relish  a  jest 
upon  serious  subjects,  I  cannot  but  think  these 
"  sparkling  witticisms"  egregiously  misplaced,  and 
too  much  in  the  style  "  of  Voltaire  and  Paine." 
Least  of  all  am  I  disposed  to  accept  of  ridicule  in 
the  place  of  argument.  Upon  the  authority  of  an 
evangelist,  I  believe  that  Jesus  promised  to  be  with 
his  disciples  till  the  end  of  that  age,  and  upon  the 
testimony  of  Luke  and  Paul,  I  believe  that  this 

•  Toget  ridof  the  stupendous  mysteiy  of  one  person  convening  with 
another,  my  coirespondent  supposes,  that  tlie  body  of  Christ  is  in  some  dis« 
taut  and  unknown  region  of  the  universe  called  Heaven,  but  that  his  divine 
nature  is  always  present  with  his  cliureli.  Tliis,  to  be  sure,  is  verj'  intelligir 
ble  and  satisfactory.    See  Letters,  p.  89,  Note. 

t  It  may  be  proper  to  observe,  that  the  unitarian  doctrine  is  not  in  the 
•east  degree  compromised  in  the  siR'Culation  concerning  the  occasional  sensi- 
ble intercourse  of  Jesus  with  his  apostles,  after  what  is  called,  his  ascension. 
To  the  generality  of  Unitarians,  the  question  I  btlieve  has  seldom  occurred, 
and  they  have  of  course  formed  no  opinion  about  it.  For  the  reasons  which  I 
have  stated  above,  I  am  inclined  to  lielieve,  that  this  personal  intercourse, 
■which  all  allow  in  the  conversion  of  Paul,  was  much  more  frequent  than  is 
commonly  apprehended.  To  others,  a  diflerent  hypothesis  may  possibi*- 
appear  more  plausiblci 


34  LETTER  n. 

promise  was  fulfilled.  Against  this  cvicknce  no 
objection  can  be  alleged,  but  that  which  arises  from 
the  puerile  and  unphilosophical  conceit,  that  heaven 
is  some  splendid  place  beyond  the  skies,  where  God 
has  a  throne,  and  where  Jesus  stands  at  his  right 
hand :  a  notion  too  absurd  to  need  refutation.  As 
to  the  metaphysical  presence  and  powers  of  Jesus 
Christ  in  his  glorified  and  exalted  state,  nothing  is 
revealed,  and  therefore  nothing  can  be  known. 

I  am,  Sec. 


LETTER  III. 


Orif^cn's  character  Offeiultil. — Review  of  t)n;  c^lntl■o^■cl•sy  be<",yftii  Dr. 
Priestley  and  Dr.  Horsley. — Tertullian's  imequivoeal  testimony  to  tlie 
Uiiitarianisin  of  the  great  body  of  unlearned  Christians. 


DEAR    SIR, 

Ix  the  Memoir  annexed  to  my  Discourse  upon  the 
death  of  Dr.  Priestley*,  I  have  expressed  my  opi- 
nion, that  in  the  controversy  with  Dr.  Horsley,  Dr. 
Priestley  was  completely  a  ictorious  :  and,  in  a  note, 
I  have  particularly  alluded  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  bishop  evades  the  direct  testimony  of  Origen, 
by  a  groundless  and  uncjualified  attack  upon  the 
veracity  of  that  celebrated  father,  and  disparages 
the  distinct  evidence  of  Tertullian  to  the  Unita- 
viajiism  of  the  majority  of  unlearned  Christians, 
by  representing  them  "  as  not  only  illiterate,  but 
ignorant  and  stupid  in  the  extreme."  At  the  close 
I  remark,  that  "  there  is  an  end  of  all  reasoning 
"  from  the  testimony  af  ancient  writers,  if,  when  a 
<'  disputant  is  pressed  by  authorities  which  he  can- 
"  not  impugn,  he  is  at  liberty  to  represent  men 
"  whose  characters  were  never  before  impeached, 
"  as  idiots  and  liars." 

*  Page  45. 


26  LEirKH  111. 

jVIy  correspondent,  as  might  be  expccicd,  does 
not  agree  in  this  judgment  of  the  case,  and  in  his 
seventh  Letter  he  states  his  own  opinion ;  and,  after 
liaving  retailed  some  of  the  archdeacon's  arguments, 
■with  as  much  parade  as  if  they  had  never  been 
heard  of  or  answered  before,  he  triumphantly  con- 
cludes with  great  apparent  self-complacency,  "  Such 
then  is  the  complete  victory  of  Dr.  Priestley." 
This  triumph,  however,  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  is 
somewhat  premature. 

The  question  concerning  the  character  of  Origen 
has  been  so  thoroughly  discussed  in  the  controversy 
between  Dr.  Priestley  and  Dr.  Horsley,  and  the 
charge  against  the  character  of  that  virtuous  and 
learned  father  has  been  so  completely  repelled,  that 
I  should  have  no  hesitation  in  leaving  the  decision 
to  every  candid  and  competent  judge  of  the  case, 
who  would  compare  the  evidence  on  both  sides. 
But  as  few  are  willing  to  submit  to  this  trouble,  I 
shall  take  the  liberty  to  give  a  brief  review  of  the 
charge  and  the  defence. 

Du.  Priestley*  having  alleged  the  unequivocal 
testimony  of  Origen,  to  prove  that  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians were  called  Ebionites,  and  that  they  adhered 
to  the  law ;  Dr.  Horsley,  in  reply,  taxes  Origen  in 
this  instance  with  "  the  wilful  and  deliberate  allega- 
"  tion  of  a  notorious  falsehoodf."  And  affirms  that 
"  whatever  Origen  may  pretend,  to  serve  a  purpose, 
"  the  majority  of  hebrcw  Christians,  from  the  time 

•  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters  to  Dr.  Horsley,  p.  18.  Origen  against  Celsus,  lilj, 
ii.  p.  56. 

t  AreUdeacou  ol'St.  Allians*  Lttlcrs  in  rcpljr  to  Dr.  Priestley,  p.  160. 


LKTIEU    III.  27 

"  of  Adrian,  forsook  their  laws,  and  lived  in  com- 
"  niunion  witli  the  gentile  bishops,  of  the  new- 
"  modelled  church  of  Jerusalem*."  Of  this  new- 
modelled  church,  and  of  the  sudden  conversion  of 
the  hebrew  Christians,  this  learned  divine  details 
the  history  with  as  much  confidence  as  if  he  had 
been  a  contemporary  witness:  and  for  a  confirma- 
tion of  his  account  he  appeals  to  the  authority  of 
Mosheini,  concluding  with  that  historian's  severe 
and  unwarrantable  reflection  upon  Origen,  that  he 
was  not  to  be  believed  even  upon  oathf. 

Never  was  any  charge  more  completely  refuted 
than  this  attack  upon  the  character  of  Origen.  Dr. 
Priestley,  in  reply  \,  first  proves  that  Mosheim  had 
not  the  least  authority  from  antiquity  to  countenance 
his  improbable  assertion,  that  upon  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  Adrian,  "  the  greatest  part  of  the 
"  Christians,  who  lived  in  Palestine,  entirely  aban- 
"  doned  the  IVIosaic  rites :"  he  then  shews  that  his 
learned  opponent  had  pieced  out  this  improbable 
story  of  Mosheim's,  with  certain  curious  circum- 
.stances  of  his  oAvn  invention,  that  were  still  more 
improbable :  and  lastly,  he  adduces  the  judgment 
of  Tillemont  and  Fleury,  in  unison  with  the  testi- 
mony of  antiquity,  that  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
after  the  time  of  Adrian,  consisted  of  gentile  Chris- 
tians only.  The  archdeacon  having  likewise,  with- 
out citing  any  authority  whatever,  charged  Origen 
with  having  "  defended  the  practice  of  using  un- 
justifiable means  to  serve  a  good  end,"  and  with 

•  Ibid.  p.  6.  t  Ibid.  p.  S9—C2. 

t  Letters  to  the  Arc)ideacon  of  St.  Albans",  Letter  4. 


2S  LliTlER   III. 

having  "  employed  the  art  he  recommended*,"  ^i'- 
Priestley  allows  that  Jerome,  in  a  passage  to  which 
he  refersf,  says,  that  Origen  adopted  the  Platonic 
doctrine  of  the  subserviency  of  truth  to  utility,  but 
denies  that  there  is  any  evidence  whatever  of  his 
having  recourse  to  it.  Dr.  Priestley  concludes  his 
reply  with  the  remark,  that  unless  his  reverend 
antagonist  "  could  make  a  better  apology  for  him- 
"  self  than  he  could  suggest,  he  would  be  considered 
'■'  by  every  iuipartial  person  as  a  fahijitr  of  history 
k'  and  a  dcfa^ncr  of  the  character  of  the  dcad^  in. 
"  order  to  serve  his  purpose  X^ 

Thk  archdeacon,  in  replyll,  pleads  "  the  necessity 
of  helping  out  tlie  broken  accounts  of  the  eccle- 
siastical history  of  those  times  by  conjecture,  in 
order  to  make  out  a  consistent  story,"  and  as  he 
might  have  added,  one  pertinent  to  the  occasion ; 
and  though  he  finds  that  Moshcim,  upon  whose 
authority  lie  rested,  had  carried  him  a  little  too  far, 
he  still  continues,  with  more  zeal  than  success,  to 
.advocate  the  existence  of  an  orthodox  church  of 
hebrew  Christians  at  Jerusalem,  after  the  time  of 
Adrian,  which  had  abandoned  the  law  of  IMoses. 
Apprehensive,  however,  that  every  reader  might 
not  approve  of  his  method  »  of  helping  out  a  broken 
"  story,"  and  convinced  that  the  foundations  of  his 
newly  erected  church  at  Jerusalem  were  not  suf- 
ficiently firm  to  support  the  battery  which  he  had 
erected  against  the  impregnable  character  of  Origen, 

'    •  Arclidtaeon  or  St.  Albans"  LeiUrs.  p.  160. 
+  Eitist.  ad  Paiiimacli.  Opp.  V.  I.  p.  490. 

X  Pritsilcys  Lctttrs  to  the  Aicliileaconof  St.  Albans'  Letter,  p.  4T. 
II  Rtmarks  upon  Dr.  PriestWj's  Scconil  Letters,  p.  39. 


LETTER    III.  29 

though  this  was  the  only  ground  from  which  the 
assault  was  originally  made,  this  dexterous  polemic 
artfully  changes  his  position,  and  endeavours  to  make 
good  his  charge,  by  pretended  self-contradictions 
produced  from  Origen's  own  writings.  With  what 
success,  let  the  impartial  reader  judge. 

Origen,  in  his  reply  to  Celsus*,  who  Avrotc 
against  the  Christians,  under  the  assumed  character 
of  a  Jew,  says,  "  He  v.  ho  pretends  to  know  every 
"  thing,  does  not  know  what  belongs  to  the  pro- 
"  sopopoeia.  For  what  does  he  say  to  the  Jewish 
"  believers  ?  That  they  have  left  the  customs  of 
"  their  ancestors,  having  been  ridiculously  deceived 
"  by  Jesus,  and  have  gooe  over  to  another  name, 
"  and  another  mode  of  life  :  not  considering  that 
"  those  Jews  who  have  believed  in  Jesus,  have  not 
■•'  deserted  the  customs  of  their  ancestors  ;  for  they 
"  live  according  to  them,  having  a  name  agreeing 
"  with  the  poverty  of  their  legal  observances.  For 
"  the  word  Ebion,  in  the  Jewish  language,  signifies 
"  poor,  and  those  of  the  Jews  who  believe  Jesus  to 
'*  be  the  Christ  are  called  Ebionites." 

Three  pages  afterv/ards  Origen  addsf,  "  How 
"  confusedly  does  Celsus's  Jew  speak  upon  this  sub- 
"  ject,  when  he  might  have  said  more  plausibly  : 
"  Some  of  you  have  relinquished  the  old  customs, 
"  upon  pretence  of  expositions  and  allegories ;  some 
"  again,  expoimding,  as  you  call  it,  spiritually, never- 
•'  theless  observe  the  institutions  of  our  ancestors. 

*  Origt  II  contra  Cclsiiiii,  ji.  56.   Dr.  Piiestlcy's  History  of  Early  Opinions. 
r.  iii  p.  159. 
t  Origen  contiu  Ctlsuni,  ^i.  59. 


30  LETTER  III. 

"  But  soTtie,  not  admitting  these  expositions,  arc 
"  willing  to  receive  Jesus  as  the  person  foretold  by 
"  the  prophets,  and  to  observe  the  law  of  Moses 
"  according  to  the  ancient  customs,  as  having  in  the 
"  letter  the  whole  meaning  of  the  spirit*." 

All  that  the  leamied  father  here  maintains  is, 
that  as  the  hebrew  Christians,  in  general,  adhered 
to  the  Mosaic  law,  Celsus's  Jew  would  have  argued 
more  plausibly.,  if  he  had  charged  only  a  part  of 
them  with  having  deserted  the  customs  of  their 
ancestors,  while  the  majority  remained  attached  to 
them.  To  discover  inconsistency  in  these  passages", 
and  still  more  to  detect  in  them  any  thing  like  wilful 
and  deliberate  falsehood,  would  puzzle  a  consistory 
of  logicians. 

The  archdeacon,  h.owever,  contends  that  Origen 
confesses,  in  contradiction  to  his  former  assertion, 
that  "•  he  knew  of  three  sorts  of  Jews  professing 
"  Christianity;  one  sort  of  whom  had  relinquished 
"  the  observance  of  the  literal  precept."  And  my 
worthy  correspondentf,  willing  to  co-operate  with 
liis  learned  predecessor,  in  the  generous  design  of 
iixing  a  stigma  upon  the  character  of  this  great  man, 
and  being  no  mean  proficient  in  the  useful  art  of 
helping  out  a  bi'oken  story,  improves  the  slendey 
notices  which  antiquity  supplies  concerning  the  his- 
tory and  character  of  Celsus  ;  first,  by  supposing  that 
Celsus  spent  some  part  of  his  life  in  Syria  ;  next  by 
asserting^  that  he  was  unquestionably  well  acquainted 

•  Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans'  Rrmaiks  upon  Dr.  P.  p.  26.  To  pi'ccludc 
objections,  1  have  given  Dr.  Morslcj's  tninslation  of  the  passage  from  Or> 
^en. 

'•  Letters,  p.  104,, 105 


LETTER  III.  31 

both  with  Judaism  and  Christianity,  and  with  the 
persons  who  adhered  to  them  :  Further,  not  perceiv- 
ing the  motive  he  could  have  for  inA'enting  the 
assertion,  that  the  Jews  who  beUeved  had  abandoned 
the  law  of  their  fathers,  he  substitutes  a  fiction 
which  would  have  better  answered  his  purpose :  and 
then,  as  if  all  these  improbable  and  unauthorised 
assumptions  had  been  established  facts,  he  draws 
the  peremptory  conclusion  : — "  Celsus  ivas  there- 
"  fore  an  early  witness ;  he  had  sufficient  opporluni- 
"  ties  of  information  ;  he  could  have  no  inducement 
"  to  falsehood  in  this  instance ;  he  7nust  have  been 
"  a  fool  as  well  as  a  knave  to  have  ventured  upon 
"  this  untruth."  Such  a  mode  of  reasoning  may 
puzzle  the  ignorant,  and  mislead  the  unwary,  but  to 
the  reflecting  reader  it  I'equires  no  comment,  and 
needs  no  reply. 

Presuming  likewise  upon  the  unproved  assertion 
of  Jerome,  that  Origen  had  adopted  the  principle 
of  sacrificing  truth  to  victory,  my  correspondent* 
first  maintains  that  Origen,  "though  nothing  could 
"  have  been,  more  easy  than  to  have  shev/n  the 
"  inconclusiveness  of  Celsus's  argument,"  chose 
rather  to  reply  to  it  by  the  assertion  of  a  palpable 
untruth,  thus  preferring  falsehood  for  falsehood's 
sake ;  and  then,  that  a  few  pages  afterwards,  as  a 
"  salvo  to  his  own  conscience,"  and  "  as  a  hint  only 
"  to  the  initiated  reader,"  he  '■^  f dainty  contradicts" 
all  that  has  been  said :  a  supposition  which  would 
make  this  renowned  advocate  of  the  christian  cause,. 

*  Letters,  p.  ipt 


32  LETTER   III. 

not  only  a  liar  unfit  to  be  believed  on  oath,  which 
is  the  aspersion  of  Mosheim  and  Dr.  Horslcy,  but 
chargeable  with  a  degree  of  fatuity  bordering  upon 
idiocy,  of  which  he  was  never  suspected  Ipefore*. 

The  next  passage  which  the  archdeacon  produces 
to  impeach  the  veracity  of  Origcn,  immediately 
succeeds  what  he  had  cited  before.  "  How  should 
"  Celsus,"  he  says,  "  make  clear  distinctions  upon 
"  this  point,  who,  in  the  sequel  of  his  Avork,  mcn- 
"  tions  impious  heresies  altogether  alienated  from 
"  Christ ;  and  others  which  have  renounced  the 
"  Creator?  and  has  not  noticed  (or  kncAv  not  of) 
"  Israelites  believing  in  Jesus,  and  not  relinquish- 
"  ing  the  law  of  their  fathers."  In  order  to  lidfi  out 
his  argument  from  this  passage,  the  learned  writer 
is  obliged  to  conjecture  that  Celsus,  professing  to 
give  u  catalogue  of  heresies  amongst  Christians,  is 
condemned  by  his  opponent  for  neglecting  to  in- 

*  Let  110  inadvertent  reader,  however,  apprelR-ml  that  my  worthy  cor- 
respondent means  any  thing  uncharitable  to  iliis  venerable  father  and  eon- 
lessor  of  the  primitive  church.  Though  Origen,  accoi-ding  to  his  account, 
was  so  addicted  to  Ijing,  as  to  love  it  for  its  own  sake,  and  to  be  undeserving 
of  credit,  even  upon  oath  ;  yet  we  are  assured,  p.  108,  that  "  his  mind  was 
wortliy  and  generally  upright.'"  And  I  am  pei-siiaded  that  my  correspon- 
dent's Immility  and  candour  would  hesitate  as  much  "  in  forming  an  opinion 
■'  on  the  future  state"  ofOrigen,  as  of  (hat  great  sinner.  Dr.  Priestley,  upon 
whose  critical  case  he  gravely  oliserves,  p.  40,  "What  pixsumptuoiis  mortal 
"  would  forbid  the  hope,  tliat  a  most  unexpected  and  monientous  ehangc  of 
"  views  and  reliance  miglit  take  place,  in  the  few  minutes  ol'solemn  niidita- 
"  tion  which  immediately  preceded  his  dissolution  ?" — J-Aalttd  charily!  Ry 
parity  of  reason,  we  maj  also  hope  that  Origen  himself  might  be  converted 
in  his  last  moments,  and  may  now  be  a  glorilied  saint  in  heaven,  though  lie 
was  a  notor:ous  liar  all  his  life.  Happy  Calvinism !  which  so  liliemlly  provides 
for  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  and  which  so  easily  finds  liolh  faith  and  i-ighte- 
ousnets  for  those  who  have  so  little  of  (heir  own.  Who  would  not  wish  this 
j^enerous  system  to  be  true.'  Wlio  will  henceforth  presume  to  pi-d)iuuncc  it, 
she  cxti-a>-iigance  of  enror^r  a  message  of  wrath  ? 


1.ETTEH  III.  S3 

elude  the  Israelites  who  believed  in  Jesus,  without 
laying  aside  the  law  of  their  ancestors.  But  as  tliis 
conjecture  is  perfectly  gratuitous,  we  are  at  liberty 
to  regard  the  conclusion  as  equally  such,  though 
the  learned  writer,  whose  intrepidity  in  assertion 
seems  to  bear  an  inverse  ratio  to  the  cogency  of 
his  argument,  concludes  the  paragraph  with  the  re- 
petition of  Mosheim's  calumny,  that  he  would  not 
believe  such  a  witness,  even  upon  oath*.  Dr.  Priest- 
ley maintains,  at  least  with  equal  plausibility,  that 
"  the  most  natural  construction  of  the  passage  is, 
"  that  Origen  says,  "  It  is  no  wonder  that  Celsus 
"  should  be  ignorant  of  what  he  was  treating,  when 
"  he  classed  the  Gnostics  along  with  Christians,  and 
"  did  not  even  know,  that  there  were  Israelites  who 
"  professed  Christianity,  and  adhered  to  the  laws  of 
"  Mosesf." 

The  reverend  dignitaryl  further  charges  Origen 
with  what  he  calls  a  strange  instance  of  prevarica- 
tion in  the  first  book  of  his  Reply  to  Celsus||.  The 
word  Alma,  he  says,  which  the  LXX  have  translated 
into  the  Trx^Saoii  [a  virgin,]  but  other  interpreters 
into  the  yemm  [a  young  woman]  is  put  too,  as  they 
SAY,  in  Deuteronomy,  for  a  virgin.  Deut.  xxii,  23, 
24.  Where  is  the  prevarication  here  ?  In  the  first 
place,  we  are  told,  that  the  compiler  of  the  Hexapla 
might  have  known,  if  he  would,  what  the  true  read- 
ing was. — Agreed. — But,  secondly,  that  Origen  pro- 
bably did  know,  that  the  true  reading  was  different 

«    Archdeacon  of  St.  Albans'  Remarks,  p.  27, 28.    Bishop  of  St.  David's 
Siippleniciital  Disquisitions.    Ko.  5.  p.  483. 
+  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters  to  the  Archdeacon,  p.  13. 
\  Remarks  p.  29.  J  Ori^eu  cout.  Celsum,  p.  27, 


^*  LETTEtt  in. 

from  Avhat  he  here  insinuates  it  to  have  been. — 
Why  ? — Because  the  word  Mma  is  not  found  in  any 
copies  which  are  now  extant :  from  which  it  is  con- 
cluded, that  it  was  not  the  reading  of  Drigen's  copy, 
although  that  copy  must  have  been  many  centuries 
older  than  any  which  we  possess*.  How  slender  a 
foundation  upon  which  to  form  an  attack  upon  so 
fair  and  venerable  a  character  ;  and  yet,  so  confident 
is  the  learned  writer  in  his  conclusion,  that  he  again 
declares,  he  would  not  credit  such  a  testimony  even 
upon  oath. 

This  is  all  the  evidence  produced  by  the  now 
right  reverend  antagonist  of  Dr.  Priestley,  in  sup- 
port of  his  attack  upon  the  character  of  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  I'espectable  of  the  ancient  eccle- 
siastical writers;  how  far  he  has  made  good  his 
charge,  and  exculpated  himself  from  the  counter- 
accusation  of  Dr.  Priestley,  as  a  falsifier  of  history, 
and  a  defamer  of  the  dead,  must  be  left  to  the  de- 
cision of  the  reader.  But  if  the  question  which 
my  correspondent  puts  in  his  usual  flourishing  and 
triumphant  manner  f,  should  still  be  proposed  ; 
"  Will  it  be  again  said,  that  Dr.  Horsley's  stric- 
"  tures  are  a  groundless  and  unqualified  attack  upoiv 
"  the  veracity  of  that  celebrated  father?"  I  answer, 
without  hesitation,  Yes.  It  will  be  said  by  every 
honest,  candid,  and  unprejudiced  person,  who  is 
qualified  to  form  a  judgment  in  the  case. 

My  correspondent  adds,  "  You  further  argue 
•'  from  the    assumption,   that   his    character   was 

*    DisquMiious,  p.  4S5.  t  U  Iters,  p.  108. 


LETTER  ill.  35 

*"  /never  before  impeached.    Never  before  impeach- 
«  eel !  My  dear  Sir,  your  own  references  would  in- 
"  form  you  that  Dr.  Horsley  had  only  trod  in  the 
"  steps  of  Mosheim*."   Now,  Sir,  to  tell  the  truth, 
my  references  did  inform  me  amply  upon  this  head. 
Nor  did  I  ever  argue  from  the  date,  but  from  the 
falsehood  of  the  charge  against  Origen  ;  nor  do  the 
words  alluded  to  contain  any  argument  at  all,  but 
:  simply  a  general  observation,  equally  applicable  to 
Mosheim,  who  first  called  this  venerable  father  a 
wilful  liar,  and  to  Dr.  Horsley,  who  is  the  first  chris- 
tian bishop  upon  i-ecord  that  has  represented  the 
majority  of  believers  as  idiots.    My  words  are  these  : 
"  There  is  an  end  of  all  reasoning  from  the  testi- 
"  mony  of  ancient  writers,  if,  when   a  disputant  is 
''  pressed  by  authorities  which  he  cannot  impugn, 
"  he  is  at  liberty  to  represent  men,  whose  charac- 
"  ters  were  never  before  impeached,  as  idiots  and 
••'  liars."    After  all,  the  use  of  language  would  bear 
me  out  in  the  expression,  that  Origen's  character 
was  never  before  impeached  ;  when  the  fact  is,  that 
it  had  stood  the  test  of  fifteen  centuries,  and  that  no 
aspersion  had  been  cast  upon  it,  till  within  the  last 
fifty  years. 

But  it  seems  I  am  to  be  overwhelmed  with  the 
authority  of  Jerome,  who,  in  a  passage  to  which 
Dr.  Priestley  refersf,  and  which  my  correspondent 
cites  pretty  much  at  large,  says,  \Miat ! — That 
Origen  is  a  wilful  liar,  not  to  be  believed  upon  his 
oath  ? — No   such   thing — But  "  that  Origen   had 

•  Lcttors,  p.  106.  t  Il"id,  107, 


36  LETTER   in. 

"  adopted  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the  subserviency 
"  of  truth  to  utility :"  and  thut  he  and  others  "hav- 
"  ing  written  many  thousand  lines  against  Celsus 
"  and  Porphyry,  because  they  are  sometimes  forced 
"  to  it  in  answer  to  the  objections  of  the  heathen, 
"  they  say,  not  what  they  think,  but  what  the  case 
"  requires."  Now,  it  is  a  possible  case  that  this 
holy  father,  who  avows  and  justifies  the  pious  prac- 
tice of  lying  for  the  truth,  might  think  that  his  own 
case  required  the  sanction  of  Origen's  great  name 
and  example  ;  and  might  choose  upon  this  occasion 
to  say,  not  what  he  thought,  but  whatrhe  wished 
others  to  think.  And  is  the  fair  character  of  Ori- 
gen  to  be  blasted  by  such  an  imputation  as  this  ?  an 
imputation  unsupported  even  by  the  pretence  of 
pi'oof  ?  No,  no.  Dr.  Priestley's  learned  antagonist 
was  too  wary  to  appeal  to  such  authority,  even  when 
it  was  suggested  to  him.  And  they  who  can  give 
credit  in  such  a  case,  to  such  evidence,  must,  to  say 
the  least,  be  very  willing  believers*. 

«  My  worthy  con-cspondent,  p.  105,  desires  nic  to  "  rcroHirt  tliat  Dr. 
"  Priestley  himself,  on  the  aiitlioritj-  of  Jerome,  admits  that  Origen  ndnptcd 
''  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the  siibservit.n(  y  of  tnilli  to  utility,  as  with  ix-sptct 
'•  to  dect;iving  enemies."  etc.  But  this  iiiptnious  gentleman's  mm  iffirencen 
itfoiild  infonn  f)h»,  that  Dr.  Priestley  fi(huils  no  such  thing.  He  only  men- 
tions, Lett,  part  ii.  j).  46.  that  Jerome,  in  his  Episllo  to  Pammachius.  Opera. 
V.  i.  p.  49fi,  says,  that  Origen  adoi>tcd  this  doctrine ;  which,  surely,  is  vei-j-  far 
from  admitting  it  as  a  fact,  though  he  might  reason  upon  it  as  a  supposition. 
My  correspondent  is  vciy  severe  upon  Dr.  Priistley,  for  adding,  in  his  Lcttc  r 
to  Dr.  HorsUy,  "Jerome  was  far  from  spying,  that  Oiigcn  reduced  his  theoi-j 
"  to  practice;  he  mentions  no  instance  whatever  of  his  having  recoui-se  to  it."* 
Dr.  Priestley's  mistake,  if  any,  is  very  inmialcrial ;  Jerome  does  in  genc- 
i-al  terms  allege  the  fact,  with  ivspecf  to  Origen,  as  well  as  others:  bui 
he  produces  no  specific  proof  whatever.  M)  coiTtspondent  can  account  for 
tlus  inadvertence  "  in  no  other  way,  than  bj'  supposing  that  the  Dr.  some- 
•'  linns  borrowed  references,  and  in  the  haste  of  writing,  did  mU  interrupt 


LEriEU   HI.  o7 

But  at  any  rate,  does  not  Jerome's  allegation 
prove  that  "  Mosheim  was  not  the  first  to  impeach 
"  the  character  of  Origenr"  I  answer,  that  bare 
assertion,  unsupported  by  evidence,  is  not  to  im- 
peach, but  to  calumniate  ;  and  in  this  honourable 
distinction,  Jerome  may,  perhaps,  be  allowed  to 
take  the  precedence  of  Mosheim.  At  the  same 
time,  it  must  be  remembered,  that  the  good  father 
professes  to  mention  the  cii'cumstance  to  Origen's 
praise  ;  a  plea,  which  will  at  least  acquit  him  from 
the  malignity  of  the  charge. 

As  to  the  celebrated  passage  from  Tertullian,  1 
am  willing  to  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of  the  im- 
partial and  well-informed  reader,  with  all  the  liberal 
expositions  of  Dr.  Horsley,*  "  the  candid  and 
"  learned  investigation  of  Dr.  Jamieson,"  and  the 
authoritative  judgment  of  my  correspondent  upon  its 
head,  w  ithout  any  apprehension  of  its  being  misun- 
derstood by  any,  who  are  not  interested  to  maintain 
that  black  is  ivhite.  Words  have  no  meaning,  if 
Tei'tuUian  does  not  aver,  that  the  majority  of  un- 
learned Christians  were  adverse  to  the  then  novel, 
and  philosophical  notion,  of  a  Trinity  in  the  gotlhead. 
As  my  learned  correspondent  has  pronounced  Dr. 
Priestley's  translation  of  the  passage  to  be  maecurate 
and  viutUated],  but  has,  at  the  same  time,  prudently 
abstained  from  giving  us  a  complete  and  correct  trans- 

"  liinisclfto  examine  them."  Tliis  et-nsiire  oomes  witli  an  ill  pracc  fi-om  a 
gentleman,  wlio,  with  respect  to  tliis  veiy  passiif^c,  lias,  in  the  liaslc  nf  -iirit- 
/n^,  coinmittc-il  an  error  wliich  completely  misnpresents  tlie  sense  of  liis 
autlior.  But  evei-j-  mote  is  ma^iified  ir.to  a  beam,  if  it  is  seen  iu  the  cyi  of 
Dr.  Priestley. 
*   lA;tters,p.  110.  t  Letlei-s,  p.  112 

4 


38  LKTTER   in. 

lation  of  his  own ;  I  shall  make  up  for  this  defect, 
by  giving  it  in  the  translation  of  Bishop  Horsley*, 
who  will,  I  suppose,  be  allowed  to  be  as  competent 
a  judge  of  the  construction  of  Greek,  as  Dr.  Jamie- 
son,  and  certainly  not  too  partial  to  the  sentiments 
of  Dr.  Priestley.  It  may  be  proper  to  premise, 
that  the  word  idiots.,  should  have  been  rendered 
illiterate^. 

"  Simple  persons,"  says  Tertullian,  "  (not  to  call 
"  them  ignorant  and  idiots)  who  always  make  the 

*    Letters  in  Reply  to  Dr.  Priestley,  p.  74. 

+  Jly  worthy  torrespontlcnt,  wlio,  by  his  numcrouj  quotations  from  tlie 
classical  Avriters,  seems  desirous  of  being  understood  to  heprtfty  much  at  home 
in  classical  literature,  expresses  high  gratification  that  Dr.  Priestley,  though 
only  a  dissenting  minister,  was  able  to  detect  Bishop  Horsley's  gross  mis- 
translation of  the  woitl  idiota.  His  words  arc,  (Letters,  p.  109,)  "  It  nmst  be 
"  gratifying  to  mc,  to  see  the  mighty  Oxonian  chastised  for  this  school-boy 
"  trick  l)y  a  dissenting  minister."  That  dissenting  mitiisters  may  not,  how- 
ever, be  too  much  elated  by  tlie  reputation  of  so  transcendent  an  exploit, 
performed  bj-  one  of  their  number,  the  auOior  adds  the  following  extraoitli- 
nar>'  remark  :  "  Yet,  I  would  be  exceedingly  modei-ate  in  my  exultation ;  for 
"  I  fear  there  are  aXmon physical  hn/wssibilitics  to  forbid  the  hope  tliat,  as  a 
'•  body,  we  shall  ever  be  distinguished  for  classical  learning."  AVhat  there 
is  in  the  physical  constitution  of  dissenting  ministers,  which  renders  their 
brains  inaccessible  to  classical  ideas,  the  ingenious  author  has  not  con- 
descended to  explain.  In  the  mean  time,  I  woidd  take  leave  to  inform  him 
for  his  comfort,  that  in  the  circle  with  which  I  ha\e  the  happiness  to  be 
conversant,  classical  litii-ature  was  never  in  hisjlier  repute,  cither  among 
tile  dissf-iitiiig  cUrg)"  or  laity.  And  that  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  men- 
tion the  names  of  Protestant  dissenting  ministers,  who  yield  in  extent, 
copiousness,  and  accuracy  of  classical  erudition,  to  none  but  the  Parrs,  the 
Poisons,  and  the  Bunieys  of  the  establishment.  The  name  of  Mr.  Cogan. 
amongst  many  others,  is  well  known  to  scholai-s,  and  was  highly  eslimateil 
by  that  eminently  compt  tent  judge  of  talent  and  learning,  the  late  cele- 
brated Gilbert  Wakefield.  Aud  while  that  gentleman,  and  olhei-s  in  dil- 
fereiit  parts  of  the  kingdom,  continue  to  exert  their  suptrior  talents  and 
energies  in  tha  education  of  our  youth,  there  is  no  danger  that  classical 
literature  will  be  lost  or  undervalued  among  the  Dissenters,  or  that  any 
pretended  physical  impossibilities  will  prevent  a  succession  of  elegant  and 
accomplished  scholars  to  do  honour  to  a  cause,  most  ultimately  connected 
with  our  dearest  civil  rights,  and  religious  liberties. 


LETTEU   III.  o9 

"  majority  of  believers ;  because  the  rule  of  faith 
"  itself  carries  us  aAvay  from  the  many  gods  of  the 
"  heathen  to  the  one  true  God,  not  understanding 
"  that  one  God  is  indeed  to  be  believed,  but  with 
"  an  oeconomy  (or  arrangement)  of  the  godhead ; 
"  startle  at  the  (economy ,  They  take  it  for  granttdy 
"  that  the  number  and  disposition  of  the  Trinity  is  a 
"  division  of  the  Unity.  They  fire  tend  that  two,  and 
"  even  three  ai'e  preached  by  us,  and  imagine  that 
"  they  thejnselves  are  tvorshipjiers  of  one  God.  We, 
"  they  say,  hold  the  monarchy.  Latins  have  caught 
"  up  the  word  monarchia.  Greeks  will  not  under- 
"  stand  oeconomia." 

I  now  conclude,  in  the  words  of  my  correspon- 
dent: Such  then  is  the  complete  victory  of 
Dr.  Priestley, 

t  And  am.  Sir,  See. 


l.ETTER  IN 


Cliai-g-c  or  inadvertency  ami  grass  niisrepi-esentaton  iviiellcct  -—Prop-ess  of 
(.-rror  conet-niin^  the  person  of  Christ  stated.-- Misrepresentation  of  Dr. 
Priestley's  seuliments  cori-ecttU. 


Understand  first,  and  then  rebuke,"  is  tlie 
advice  of  a  very  wise  writer*,  to  which  my  worthy 
correspondent  would  have  done  well  to  have  attend- 
ed. It  is  not  necessary  that  every  man  should  be  a 
consummate  scholar,  or  a  profound  theologian  :  but 
it  may  reasonably  be  expected  of  one  who  publicly 
volunteers  the  office  of  a  critic,  and  a  censor,  that 
he  should  at  least  know  something-  of  the  subject 
of  his  remarks. 

In  the  Discourse  upon  which  this  gentleman 
unimadvertst,  is  the  following  passage  : 

"  In  another  most  valuable  work,  he  (Dr.  Priest- 
'»  ley)  represented  at  large,  with  great  compass  of 
"  thought,  acuteness  of  discrimination,  and  extent  of 
"  learning,  the  rise  and  progress  of  those  enormous 
""errors,  which  have  prevailed  from  age  to  age, 
"  concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  who  from  the 

*  Ecclus.  xi.  7. 

t  Fivieral  Diseoui-se  for  Dr.  Pi  ieslky,  p.  28. 


J.ETTEK    IV.  41 

"  condition  of  a  man  approved  of  God  by  signs  and 
"  miracles  and  gifts  of  the  holy  spirit*,  which  is 
"  the  character  under  which  he  is  represented  by 
"  himself  and  his  apostles,  has  been  advanced  by 
"  the  officious  zeal  of  his  mistaken  followers,  first, 
"  to  the  state  of  an  angelic  or  superangelic  being ; 
"  a  delegated  maker  and  governor  of  the  world  and 
"  its  inhabitants  ;  and  in  the  end,  to  a  complete 
"  equality  with  God  himself." 

This  compendious  view  of  the  progress  of  anti- 
christian  error  concerning  the  person  of  Christ, 
as  described  in  the  History  of  Early  Opinions,  is 
denounced  by  my  correspondent  in  the  beginning 

•  Upon  this  allusion  to  Acts  ii.  22,  my  corrcspondont,  p.  116,  is  pleased 
to  make  the  I'ollowiiig  sins'ilar  reinarU — ^^How  is  this  mhiimkr^tood  passage 
'^hackneyed  by  Unitarians !"  The  apostU-'s  words  are  tliese:  "Jesus  of 
"  Nazareth,  a  MAN  approvi-d  of  God  anionjj  you,  l>y  miracles,  and  wonders, 
"  and  sigTis,  which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as  ye  yourselves  also 
"  know."  How  this  plain  passage  can  possibly  be  inisundei-siood ,  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  conceive.  'I'he  ob\ious  meaning  to  common  apprel)en^iolls  is,  that 
Tesus  of  Nazarctli  was  a  MAN  whose  divine  mission  was  publicly  and  incon- 
irovertibly  attested  to  the  Jews,  by  the  miracles  which  God  enabled  him  to 
perform.  If,  indeed,  this  text  contains  any  other  more  recondite  and  im- 
portant sense,  it  would  siu-ely  have  been  greater  charity  to  instruct  our 
igaorauce,  than. to  taunt  our  didlness.  Perhaps  uiy  ingenious  cori-espondeut 
may  have  some  inetliod  ot'interpii-'tatlon,  by  w  liicli  fo  shew  that  the  apostle's 
true  meaning  is,  that  the  man  whose  mission  was  publicly  attested  by  God, 
Wiis  himstlfthe  very  God  who  attested  his  own  mission,  and  who  enabled 
himself  to  work  miracles.  At  any  rate,  it  would  be  kind  and  condescending 
to  enlijfhten  our  darkness  ii|)on  a  subject  so  much  misundeistoud.  In  the 
mean  time,  while  nolions  unscriptin-al,  antichristian,  and  subversive  of  true 
and  rational  piety,  continue  to  l)e  incessaiitlj'  hnchiifytjct  as  the  doctrines  of 
the  gospel,  the  Unitarians  will  not  fail  (ui  the  decent  phraseolog)  of  my 
con-espondent)  to  luiikiiry  the  scriptm-es  in  ojjposilinn  to  them  ;  and  wliethei- 
the  r.ea lots  for  popular  opiniims  approve  it  or  no,  the)  will  pti-severe  to 
demonstrate,  without  fi  ar  o(  afutation,  that  sucli  doctr'nes  are  as  itpugi-.anc 
to  the  explicit  language  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to  the  faith  of  t!je  piinii- 
eive  ch'irch,  as  they  are  contradictory  to  coniinou  sense,,  and  to  the  tint 
pnuciples  of  natural  religion, 

4* 


42  LETTER   IV. 

of  his  eighth  Letter,  as  a  "  singular  inaccuracy  of 
"  statement,"  originating,  is  he  charitably  conceives, 
in  "  fierfect  inadvertency  on  my  part*."  And  wax- 
ing bolder  as  he  advances,  he  peremptorily  affirms 
that  this  account  "  is  the  precise  reverse  of  acknow- 
"  ledged  fact."  "  In  the  very  work,"  continues  he, 
"  which  you  are  characterising,  Dr.  Priestley  esta- 
"  blishes  the  direct  contrary."  Proceeding  then 
with  great  parade  to  produce  his  strong  reasons,  the 
validity  of  which  will  be  the  subject  of  immediate 
inquiiy,  he  triumphantly  concludes  :  "  Words  could 
"  hardly  be  devised  more  fully  contradictory  to  your 
"  inadvertent,  though  plausible  observationf."  In 
addition  to  which,  not  having  the  fear  of  Dr.  Priest- 
ley's book  before  his  eyes,  he  confidently  hazards 
the  extraordinary  assertion,  that  "  according  to  Dr. 
"  Priestley,  the  very  first  step  of  deviation  from  the 
"  simple  humanity  of  Christ,  was  the  ascription  to 
*'  him  of  a  nature  truly  and  properly  divine  :t." 

Unfoutunately  for  this  gentleman's  theologi- 
cal reputation,  he  has  in  this  instance,  as  in  most 
uthcrs,  sung  Te  Dcum  before  the  victory.  For  in 
order  to  convict  me  of  the  heavy  charge  of  "  per- 
"  feet  inadvertency,"  and  of  asserting  "  the  precise 
reverse  of  acknowledged  facts,"  my  well-meaning 
correspondent,  whose  zeal  not  unfrequently  out- 
strips his  information,  has  assumed  principles  which 
are  notoriously  erroneous,  has  alleged  arguments 
which  are  totally  irrelevant,  and  has  confounded 

♦   Li  ttii-s  to  Mj-.  D.  p.  llfi.  ■•■  l.iU( IS.  p.  in.  t  Ltttfvs,  Ilii'J. 


LETTER   IV.  4>> 

distinctions,  which  are  plain  and  palpable,  to  every 
one  who  is  conversant  with  ecclesiastical  antiquity*. 

The  basis  of  this  gentleman's  argviment,  without 
which  the  whole  pompous  superstructure  falls  to 
the  ground,  is  the  extraordinary  assumption,  "  that 
the  notion  of  the  Logos,  or  the  superior  nature  of 
"  Jesus  Christ,  pre-existing  as  an  angelic  or  super- 
"  angelic  being,  is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the 
■•'  Arian  hypothesisf." 

This  position  being  premised,  the  author  further 
presumes,  without  the  shadow  of  reason,  and  con- 
trary to  fact,  that  I  could  have  no  hypothesis  but 
Arianism  in  view :  and  having  produced  from  Dr. 
Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions  a  collection  of 
passages  to  prove,  what  I  am  not  at  all  inclined  to 
dispute,  that  Arianism  was  a  novel  doctrine,  un- 
known to  the  church  before  the  age  of  Arius,  and 
that  it  was  not  "  an  intermediate  stage  by  which 
"  the  comiTion  people  who  were  Unitarians  were 
"  brought  to  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  ;"  he  plumes 
himself  upon  having  established  his  charge,  and 
with  great  self-complacency  proclaims  his  triumph. 

But  with  this  gentleman's  good  leave,  I  must 
demur,  both  to  his  premises  and  to  his  conclusion. 
I  am  as  little  satisfied  with  his  arbitrary  definition 
of  Arianism  here,  as  with  his  unauthorized  detail 
of  Calvinism  in  a  former  letter.     I  deny  that  the 

•  My  correspondent  confounds  the  tenets  of  the  Gnostics  with  those  of 
the  Arians.  Indeed  his  arjjmuont  rests  upon  the  strange  supx>osition  that 
no  other  distinctions  subsisted  in  the  primitive  aj^es,  but  those  of  Unita- 
rianism,  Arianism,  and  Trinitarian  ism,  a  supposition  than  which  nothing 
tan  be  more  remote  from  truth. 

t  Letters  to  Mr.  B.  p.  118. 


44 


LETTER   JV. 


notion  of  the  superior  nature  of  Christ,  pre-existing 
as  an  angelic  or  superangelic  being,  is  the  dis- 
tinguishing feature  of  the  Arian  hypothesis*.  I 
affirm  that  this  is  a  position  which  would  never  have 
been  advanced  by  any  one,  Avho  was  moderately 
acquainted  with  the  state  of  theological  doctrine  in 
the  primitive  ages.  I  contend  that  this  opinion  was 
introduced  two  hundred  years  before  Arianism  was 
heard  of.  And  after  a  mature  revision  of  the  sub- 
ject, I  persist  in  asserting  the  accuracy  and  fidelity 
of  that  statement,  which  my  correspondent  has 
attacked ;  in  confirmation  of  which,  I  shall  now 
proceed  briefly  to  represent  the  progress  of  errone- 
ous opinions,  concerning  the  person  of  Christ  in 
the  four  first  centuries  of  the  christian  sera. 

That  the  founder  of  the  christian  faith  should 
be  only  a  crucified  Jew,  has  ever  been,  still  is,  and 
will,  I  fear,  long  continue  to  be,  the  great  stumbling- 
block  of  the  christian  religion.  It  was  eminently 
such  in  the  earliest  periods  of  the  promulgation  of 
the  gospel.  The  philosophers  who  could  not  resist 
the  evidence  of  its  divine  authority,  could  not,  on 
the  other  hand,  endure  the  disgrace  of  being  called 
'iSn  nap  Ebde  Tolvi,  the  followers  of  the  man  that 
was  hanged:  and  to  escape  the  reproach  of  the 
cross,  they  soon  began  to  combine  the  plain  and 
simple  truths  of  the  gospel,  with  the  obscure  fic- 

•  In  fruUi,  l)ie  notion  staitd  by  my  corn  spondt  nt.  Is  nO'  feature  of 
Arianism  at  all.  For  tin-  Arian  iloclriiie  inaMitains  that  tlie  Logos  is  the 
soul  whitli  aiiimatis  tlic  boiiy  of  Christ:  nor  is  this  hypntlusis  enciiiiibtn'd 
with  the  iiiiiiitelli)^l)If  jar^n  of  two  natuns  in  Christ :  the  one  siipiiior, 
ihf  other  inferior;  the  one  a  prctxistent  suiKTangelic  spirit,  tlie  other  a 
luimnn  sou). 


LETTER   IV.  45 

lions  of  their  respective  systems  ;  that  so  they  might 
impart  that  dignity  and  lustre  to  this  new  sect,  and 
to  its  chief,  which  they  thought  essentially  requisite 
both  to  his  credit  and  their  own. 

Of  these,  the  Gnostics  set  the  first  example :  a 
sect  which  unquestionably  existed  in  the  apostolic 
age,  and  of  which  Simon  Magus  was  the  reputed 
founder.  The  Gnostics  were  the  professors  of  the 
oriental  philosophy,  according  to  which,  the  pleroma, 
or  place  where  the  Supreme  Being  i-esided,  was 
inhabited  by  iEons,  or  emanations  from  him* ;  some 
of  superior,  others  of  inferior  order,  according  to  the 
degrees  of  their  descent.  Matter  was  regarded  by 
them  as  intrinsically  evil ;  and  the  source  of  all  evil, 
natural  and  moral.  These  philosophers  represented 
Christ  as  one  of  the  iEons,  who  was  sent  from  the 
pleroma,  to  deliver  mankind  from  the  tyranny  of  the 
God  of  the  Jews.  All  of  them  maintained,  that  the 
Christ  was  incapable  of  suffering.  Some  taught, 
that  the  Christ  was  united  to  the  man  Jesus  at  his 
baptism,  and  departed  from  him  at  his  crucifixion. 
Others,  more  consistently  with  their  principles,  hold- 
ing it  to  be  impossible  that  a  substance  intrinsically 
evil,  such  as  matter,  should  be  united  to  an  angelic 
or  superangelic  spirit,  contended  that  Jesus  was  a 
man  only  in  appearance ;  and  that  he  neither  felt, 

•  "  The  ^vfat  Iwast  of  llie  Cinoslics,"  says  Dr.  Priestley,  was  thiir  pro- 
"  fuutul  anil  intricate  doctrine  concerning  the  derivation  of  various  intelli- 
"  gencos  from  the  supreme  niiiul,  which  tliey  tliought  to  be  done  by  emana- 
"  tion  or  efllux."  H.st.  of  Opinions,  vol.  i.  p.  154.  Valenlinus  held,  with 
itspect  to  the  superangelic  nature  of  Clu-ist,  that  he  was  one  of  the  Mom  ; 
and  according  to  his  genealogy,  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  were  the  offspring 
of  Monogeiies,  which  came  from  Logos  and  Zoe,  as  these  were  the  oftspring 
of  Noils  and  Veritas,  ami  these  of  Bylhus  aud  Sige.   Ibid.  p.  179. 


46  LETTER  IV. 

nor  suffered,  like  other  men,  but  only  seemed  to  do 
so.  These  were  called  Docetae.  This  was  the 
heresy  of  the  apostolic  age*.  The  apostle  Paul 
alludes  to  it,  when  he  cautions  Timothy  against  the 
illusions  of  science,  falsely  so  calledf  :  for  the  Gnos- 
tics pretended  to  superior  knowledge  :  and  when  he 
warns  him  not  to  give  heed  to  endless  genealogies  |, 
there  being  great  disputes  among  the  Gnostics  con- 
cerning the  pedigrees  of  the  ^ons.  The  apostle 
John  certainly  refers  to  the  Docetae,  when  he  repre- 
sents those  as  Antichrists,  who  deny  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christy,  or  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
fleshU,  or  in  other  words,  that  he  is  a  real  man. 
The  Gnostic  heresy  appears  to  have  been  silenced 
by  the  authority  of  the  apostles,  till  the  time  of  the 
Emperor  Adrian,  when  it  burst  out  again  with  in- 
creased violence,  was  embraced  by  luultitudes  in 
Asia  and  Egypt,  and  was  split  into  a  great  variety 
of  subordinate  sects**. 

Platonism  was  the  fashionable  philosophy  of  the 
West.  Plato  had  obscurely  taught  the  doctrine  of 
three  principlesft-    The  Supreme  Being,  whom 

*  Jerome  says,  that  while  the  apostles  were  still  living,  and  when  the 
blood  of  Christ  was  scarcely  told  in  Judea,  there  were  men  who  taught  that 
his  body  was  no  more  than  a  phantom.  Lardner's  Works,  v.  iii.  p.  542. 
Cotelerius  says,  that  a  man  may  as  well  dt-ny  that  the  sun  gives  light  ai 
noon,  as  deny  that  the  lieivsy  of  the  Docetae  broke  out  in  the  age  of  the 
apostles.    Laitlner  ibid.  Cotelerius  ad  Ignat.  cp.  ad  Trail,  c.  10. 

t  1  Tim.  vi.  20.  J  1  Tim.  i.  3.    Tit.  iii.  0. 

II  1  John  ii.  22.  H  1  John  iv.  2,  3.    2  John  7. 

••  See  Dr.  Priestley's  Hist,  of  Early  Opinions,  vol.  i.  book  i.  chap.  i. — v.. 
Mosheim's  Eccl.  Hist.  cent.  i.  part  ii.  chap.  v.  Cent.  ii.  pait  ii.  chap.  v.  Lanl- 
ner's  Hist,  of  Heretics,  book  i.  sect.  vi.  p.  IS.  Lartlucr's  Works,  vol.  ix.  p. 
233,  etc.  Vol.  iii.  p.  541,  542. 

tt  Dr.  Priestley,  ibid,  book  i.  chap.  vi.  vol.  i.  p.  320. 


LETTER  IV.  47 

he  calls  the  Good  ;  the  Nous,  or  intellect  of  the 
Supreme  ;  and  Matter,  or  the  visible  world.  The 
latter  Platonists  expounded  and  improved  upon  the 
hypothesis  of  their  founder.  Porphyry,  explaining 
the  doctrine  of  Plato,  extends  the  divine  essence  to 
three  hypostases:  the  first  is  the  Supreme  Being  or 
the  Good  ;  the  second,  the  Demiurgus,  the  Maker 
of  the  world  ;  and  the  third,  the  Soul  of  the  world*. 
Philo,  a  platonic  Jew  of  Alexandria,  contemporary 
with  the  apostles,  personifies  the  Nous,  or  as  he 
calls  it  the  Logos,  the  wisdom  or  energy  of  God, 
and  represents  it  as  the  visible  symbol  of  the  divine 
presence  ;  sometimes  appearing  in  the  form  of  an 
angel,  sometimes  in  that  of  a  man,  acting  as  the 
medium  of  divine  communications,  but  having  no 
permanent  separate  existence!.  This  notion  was 
eai'ly  adopted  by  some  philosophic  Christians,  in 
order  to  abate  the  odium  which  was  entailed  upon 
the  christian  religion,  in  consequence  of  the  mean 
condition  and  ignominious  sufferings  of  its  founder. 
Justin  Martyr,  a  platonic  philosopher,  a  man 
of  great  integrity,  but  of  warm  feelings,  and  of 
slender  judgment,  who  embraced  Christianity,  and 
who  suffered  martyrdom  about  A.  D.  165,  is  the 
first  ecclesiastical  writer,  now  extant,  who  repre- 
sents the  Logos,  or  the  wisdom  of  God,  as  person- 
ally united  to  the  man  Christ.  Others  before  him 
had  probably  held  the  same  doctrine,  but  had  sup- 
posed that  the  Logos,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ, 
had  been  again  absorbed  into  the  substance  of  the 

•  Dr.  Priestley,  ibid  book  i.  chap.  vii.  sect.  i.  vol.i.  p.  35fi.  Vol.  ii.  p.  41. 
t  Dr.  Prieit!ey,  ibid,  biiok  i.  chap.  vjli.  vol.  ii.  p.  1. 


48 


LETTKR   IV. 


Father.  Justin  appears  to  have  been  the  first  writer 
who  taught  the  permanent  personality  of  the  divine 
Logos*,  which  he  asserts  that  he  had  learned  from 
the  Jewish  scriptures ;  for  the  understanding  of 
which,  he  professes  lo  have  had  a  special  gift  from 
Godf.  And  his  great  authority,  together  with  the 
increasing  desire  of  exalting  the  person  and  dignity 
of  Christ,  induced  the  learned  Christians  who  suc- 
ceeded him  to  adopt  his  opinion  |^.  Thus  the  doc- 
trine of  the  permanent  personal  union  of  the  divine 
Logos,  with  the  man  Christ,  by  which  he  became 
entitled  to  divine  attributes  and  honours,  gradually 
made  its  way  among  learned  Christians  in  the 
second  and  third  centuries :  and  this  was  the  doc- 
trine from  which  the  minds  of  the  great  body  of 
unlearned  believers  so  vehemently  revolted  in  the 
time  of  Tcrtullianll,  and  against  which  they  solemn- 
ly protested,  as  a  direct  infringement  of  the  divine 
unity.  Nevertheless,  as  it  was  an  essential  part  of 
this  system,  that  the  Logos  which  dwelt  in  Christ 
was  merely  an  attribute  of  the  Father,  the  abettors 
of  it  regarded  themselves  as  sufficiently  supporting 
the  unity  of  the  godhead,  by  maintaining  that  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ  was  the  same  with  that  of 
the  Father.     He  was  not  a  God  different  from  the 

•  Priestley's  Histoi-)-  of  Eailj-  0|)iiiioiis,  hooli  ii.  ciiap.  ii.  sect.  ii.  vol.  ii. 
p.  53. 

•f-  See  tlio  venerable  Mr.  I.inclspy's  Second  Address  to  tl;e  Yoiiili  of  tlie 
two  Uiiivevsiiies,  chap.  ii.  sect.  xiv. — ^xvii. 

t  Mr.  Lindsey,  ibid.  sect,  xviii. — \xi.  Aiignsliiie  says,  tbat  lie  rcpirdcd 
Christ  only  as  a  man  of  excellent  and  incompai-able  wisdom,  till  lie  read  tlic 
works  of  Plato.    Confess,  lib.  vii.   I*rdner's  Worlis,  vol.  iii.  p.  5a\. 

P  See  p.  48. 


LETTER   IV.  49 

I'ather,  and  equal  to  him,  hut  was  an  cnianalion 
from  him,  and  one  with  liim. 

The  commencement  of  the  fourth  century  usher- 
ed in  a  novel  doctrine,  which  astonished  and  alarmed 
tlie  whole  christian  world,  and  which  the  pious 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  in  his  circular  letter  to  the 
catholic  bishops,  declares  so  far  to  exceed  in  im- 
piety, every  thing  which  has  been  heard  of  before, 
that  in  comparison  with  it,  the  most  daring  ex- 
travagancies of  all  former  heresies  were  perfectly 
innocent*.  This  was  Arianismf.  T\\g  fihilo.sop/iising 
prelate  to  whom  I  have  just  alluded,  and  whose 
name  was  Alexander:}^,  having  upon  a  certain  occa- 
sion asserted  the  doctrine  of  a  Unity  in  the  Trinity 
in  a  stricter  sense  than  some  of  his  inferior  clergy- 
approved,  was  accused  by  Arius,  one  of  his  presby- 
ters, a  man  of  learning  and  subtlety,  of  favouring 
the  Sabejlian  heresy.  And  in  the  heat  of  argument, 
this  rebellious  priest  presumed  to  advance  the 
hitherto  unheard-of  position,  that  the  Logos  who 
animated  the  body  of  Christ  was  a  m.ere  creature, 
formed  (f|  ovk  ofim)  out  of  nothing  :  that  there  was 
a  time  when  he  had  no  existence  :  (o7<  j;v  ttoIi,  ele  enx. 
•/)v)  and  in  fine,  "  that  he  was  Iirought  into  being  for 
"  no  purpose,  but  to  give  existence  to  the  world 

»    Soerntes,  Hisf.  Etcl.  lili.  i.  <liii|).  vi.  p.  13   liii.  21.  Kd.  lUnilln^. 

+  Thf  cliai-acui-istic  «li''tii:ctioii  of  An;ii;ism  is  iln-  iloetiiiie  of  a  crenrcii 
Lof^is.  Tliis  was  a  liypoOit sis  pci-T  ctly  new.  iiiscl  «  hii-li  excited  llie  utmost 
clarm.  The  Riioslic  M  >iis,  and  liit-  plaloaif  Loiifos,  wcri.'  t^niniintioiis,  not  oriM- 
niVfS.  He  lliat  is  i.ot  apprz  d  of  tliisp  disiiiicimis,  and  of  the  inniortiince 
attached  to  iliem,  Is  loially  i|;nMiraiii  of  lJn  siil  ji  cl. 

I  Socrafis  ibid.  c.  5.  <i>tXo:ro(bu¥  e6-0>«>'/ei,  h  the  hi.toiiairs  (  \pivs- 
»*>ii  i-drifLTii  npr  the  orthodox  pivlatc 


50  LETTER  IV. 

"  and  its  inhabitants  ;  so  that  if  God  had  not  chosen 
"  that  tJie  world  should  be  made,  the  Logos  him- 
"  self  would  not  have  existed*."  Notwithstanding 
the  novelty  of  this  doctrine,  and  its  contrariety  to 
the  orthodox  creed,  it  spread  with  great  rapidity, 
and  was  embraced  by  multitudes  with  great  eager- 
ness, till  the  Emperor  Constantine,  having  in  vain 
endeavoured,  by  prudent  mediation  to  reconcile  the 
angry  priests,  summoned  a  general  council  of  chris- 
tian bishops  at  Nice,  to  settle  the  controversy ; 
who,  after  much  debate,  at  length  decided,  that  the 
Son  was  of  the  same  essencef  with  the  Father,  and 
denounced  anathema  upon  all  who  should  presume 
to  teach,  that  his  essence  was  |  different  from  that 
of  God. 

In  the  heat  of  controversy  with  the  Arians,  the 
orthodox  by  degrees  lost  sight  of  their  original  doc- 
trine of  the  personification  of  an  attribute,  and  began 
to  represent  the  Son  as  a  distinct  intelligent  Being, 
derived  indeed  from  the  Father  by  necessary  gene- 
ration, but  in  all  other  respects  equal  with  him,  and 
only  united  to  him  as  partaking  of  the  same  divine 
.nature.  To  these  divine  persons,  in  due  time,  was 
added  a  third,  called  the  Holy  Ghost,  derived  by 
procession  from  the  Father  only,  according  to  the 
Greek  church  :  but  the  Latins  have  decided,  that  he 

•  Socnitisiliid.  c.  6.   A;  >)|M,*«  y«f  TTSTrotipxi,  iy»  >)/«.«?  oi  xvla, 

0:05    r,$eXiV    TFOH/tTXl. 

t    0,M.«»s-/«5. 

%  E|  (le^xi;  aricci  tpxriciUxi  eivxi.    Soci-ates  Uml.  c.  8.  p.  2». 
RcadUig. 


LETTER   IV.  51 

proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  At  length, 
about  a  century  after  the  council  of  Nice,  the  ortho- 
dox faith  Avas  finally  settled,  and  the  respective 
claims  of  the  three  supposed  divine  persons  were 
finally  adjusted  in  that  paragon  of  ingenuity,  ab- 
surdity, and  impiety,  the  Creed  falsely  ascribed  to 
St.  Athanasius,  but  which  is  attributed  by  many 
learned  men,  with  more  probability,  to  ^"igiiius 
Tapsensis,  a  notorious  writer  and  forger  of  ancient 
writings,  and  records,  in  the  fifth  century*.  It  is 
from  this  symbol,  and  not  from  that  of  the  Nicene 
fathers,  who  would  have  been  shocked  at  the  novelty 
and  blasphemy  of  the  doctrine,  that  we  learn  that 
"  in  this  Trinity,  none  is  afore  or  after  the  other ; 
"  none  is  gi'eater  or  less  than  another ;  but  the  whole 
"  three  persons  are  co-eternal  together,  and  co- 

"  EQUAL." 

From  this  brief  review  of  the  rise  and  progress 
of  anti-christian  errors,  concerning  the  person  of 
Christ,  I  conceive  that  it  will  appear  to  every  com- 
petent and  impartial  judge,  that  notwithstanding  the 
late  I'ise  of  Arianism,  the  date  of  what  now  passes 
for  orthodox  Trinitarianism  is  still  later:  and  that 
I  was  perfectly  correct  in  the  assertion,  that  "  from 
"  the  condition  of  a  man  approved  of  God,"  which  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  "  our  Lord  has 
"  been  advanced  by  the  officious  zeal  of  his  mistaken 
"  followers,  first  to  the  state  of  an  angelic  or  supcr- 
"  angelic  Being,"  which  was  the  error  of  the  Gnos- 

•  He  is  supposed  to  liavt-  bei-n  tin;  iiitcrpolater  of  the  notor'ous  lest 
i-elat'n^  to  tlie  t'irce  Ueavcnly  witiiesse*.  1  John  v.  T.  Stt  Griesbath  on 
ihe  Tr\t. 


^■i  LETTER   ly. 

tics  ;  "  then  to  that  of  a  delegated  Maker  and  Go- 
''  vemor  of  the  world  and  its  inhabitants,"  which 
was  the  opinion  of  Platonists  and  Arians ;  "  and  in 
"  the  end  to  a  complete  equality  with  God  himself," 
which  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  and 
which  was  not  known  till  the  latter  end  of  the 
fourth  century.  I  cannot  therefore  plead  guilty  to 
the  charge  of  having  affirmed,  that  which  is  "  the 
"  precise  reverse  of  acknowledged  fact."  But,  on 
the  contrary,  if  I  were  disposed  to  retaliate,  it  would 
not  be  difficult  to  make  good  the  indictment  against, 
the  accuser  him.self. 

I  SHALL  now  proceed  to  shew,  from  Dr.  Priestley's 
own  words,  how  very  agreeable  to  "  acknowledged 
''  fact''  is  my  correspondent's  confident  assertion, 
"  that,"  according  to  Dr.  Priestley,  "  the  -very  first 
"  ftteji  of  deviation  fiom  the  simple  humanity  of 
•'  Christ,  was  the  ascription  to  him  of  a  nature  truly 
''  and  properly  divine*.' 

i'othis  purpose  I  might  transcribe  the  whole  four 
volumes  of  Dr.  Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opi- 
nions concerning  Christ.  I  might  add  a  very  fair 
proportion  of  his  account  of  the  Corruptions  of 
C'hribtianity.  I  might  subjoin  no  inconsiderable 
part  of  his  controversy  with  Dr.  Ilorsley,  and  might 
bring  up  the  rear  with  a  A"olume  .or  two  of  his 
Ecclesiastical  History.  But  as  all  this  could  not 
easily  be  contained  in  the  compass  of  a  Letter,  I 
will  limit  myself  to  a  few  extracts  from  the  con- 
clusion of  the   first-mentioned  work,  in  which  the 

♦    Ltttci'sto  Mr.  B.  p.VlO. 


UETTEU    IV.  53 

learned  writer  professes  to  give  a  connected  view  of 
all  the  principal  articles  in  the  preceding  Histoiy. 

"  All  that  these  philosophers  could  advance  at 
'■^Jirst"  says  Dr.  Priestley,  "  was,  that  some  great 
"  superangelic  spirit  had  been  sent  down  from  hca- 
"  ven,  and  was  attached  to  the  man  Jesus — tliis 
"  superangelic  Being  was  properly  the  Christ.  This 
"  was  the  doctrine  of  the  earlier  Gnostics*. 

"  Bur  as  it  had  been  the  opinion  of  many,  that 
"  angels  were  only  temporary  and  unsubslanlial 
"  forms — others  of  these  philosophers  thought,  that 
"  what  was  called  the  man  Jesus,  was  nothing 
"  more  than  one  of  these  unsubstantial  forms  of 
"  men  ;  so  that  the  superangelic  spirit  or  the  Christ 
"  had  no  proper  body  or  soul  at  all.  These  were 
"  called  Doceta; ;  a7id  this  progress  /lad  been  made  in 
"  the  time  of  the  ajiostles^." 

"  Having  been  taught  by  the  plalonic  philoso- 
"  phers  that  there  were  three  great  principles  in 
"  nature,  viz.  the  Supreme  Being  or  the  Good, 
"  his  Mind  (Nous),  and  the  Soul  of  the  world  :  and 
"  the  Jewish  philosophers  having  already  advanced, 
"  that  the  second  of  these  principles,  which  they 
"  denominated  Logos,  was  an  emanation  from  the 
"  Supreme  Being,  and  the  cause  of  all  the  appear- 
"  ances  of  God,  recorded  in  the  C;kl  Testament, 
"  some  of  uhich  were  in  the  form  of  men  ;  and 
"  having  also  taught  that  it  was  this  Logos  that,  by 
"  order  of  the  Supreme  Being,  had  made  the  visible 
"  world,  that  he  was  the  image  of  God,  his  only 

*    Dr.  rWi.stU-\  "i  Hist,  ol"  Karly  Oiiin'.or.s,  vol.  iv.  p.  276. 
t  Ibid.  p.  276,  277. 


54  LETTER  IV'. 

"  begotten  Son,  and  that  he  was  even  entitled  to  the 
"  appellation  of  God  in  an  inferior  sense  of  the 
"  word :  these  christian  philosophers  imagined  that 
"  it  was  this  Logos  that  was  united  to  the  man  Jesus 
"  Christ,  and  that  on  this  account  he  might  be  called 
«  God*. 

"  For  some  tiine,  however,  the  more  learned 
"  Christians  contented  themselves  with  supposing, 
"  that  the  union  between  this  divine  Logos  and  the 
"  man  Christ  Jesus  was  only  temporary.  For  they 
"  held  this  divine  efflux,  which,  like  a  beam  of  light 
"  from  the  sun,  went  out  from  God,  and  was  attach- 
"  ed  to  the  person  of  Christ,  to  enable  him  to  work 
"  miracles  while  he  was  on  earth,  was  drawn  into 
"  God  again  when  he  ascended  into  heaven,  a'M  had 
"  no  more  occasion  to  exert  a  miraculous  powerf. 

"  It  was  afternvards  maintained,  and  Justin  Mar- 
'<  tyr,  who  had  been  a  platonic  philosopher,  was  per- 
"  haps  the  first  who  suggested  the  idea,  that  this 
"  union  of  the  Logos  to  the  person  of  Christ  was 
*'  not  temporary,  but  permanent  |. 

"  The  philosophical  Christians  acknowledged,  that 
"  though  Christ,  on  account  of  the  divine  Logos 
"  luiited  to  him,  might  be  called  God,  it  was  in  an 
"  inferior  sense  :  also  that  the  divinity,  and  even  the 
"  being  of  the  Son,  was  derived  from  the  Father|). 

"  As  it  had  always  been  maintained  by  the  pla- 
"•  ionizing  Christians,  that  the  Logos  came  out  of 
"  God,  just  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  and 
"  consequently,  that  there  had  been  a  time  when 

♦  Dr.  Priestley's  Hist,  of  Early  Opinions,  vol.  iv.  p.  27S. 

t  Uiid.  p.  27?.  %  Ibid.  J>.  £P0.  ^  Ibid.  p.  IBI 


LETTER  IV.  55 

"  God  was  alone,  and  the  Son  was  not;  and  as  they 
"  had  always  held  that  when  the  Son  was  produced, 
"  he  was  greatly  mferior  to  the  Father,  t/icTe  arose 
"  some  who  said,  that  he  ought  to  be  considered  as 
"  a  mere  creature,  not  derived  from  the  substance 
*'  of  God,  but  created  out  of  nothing,  as  other  crea- 
"  tures  were.  These,  who  were  the  Arians,  consi- 
"  dering  the  Logos  as  being  the  intelligent  principle 
"  in  Christ,  thought  that  there  was  no  occasion  to 
"  suppose  that  he  had  any  other  soul.  They  there- 
"  fore  said  that  Christ  was  a  superangelic  Being, 
"  united  to  a  human  body ;  that  though  he  himself 
"  was  created,  he  was  the  Creator  of  all  things  under 
"  God,  and  the  instrument  of  all  the  divine  com- 
"  munications  to  the  patriarchs*. 

"  In  opposition  to  the  Arians,  the  orthodox  main- 
"  tained  the  Logos  must  be  of  the  same  substance 
"  with  the  Father,  and  co-eternal  with  himf. 

"  From  this  ti?ne,  i.  e.  the  time  of  the  council  of 
"  Nice,  those  who  had  distinguished  themselves  the 
"  most  by  their  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  the  con- 
"  substantiality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  did  like- 
"  wise  maintain  both  the  proper  personality  of  the 
"  Holy  Spirit,  and  also  his  consubstantiality  with 
"  the  Father  and  the  Son.  This  doctrine  of  the 
"  consubstantiality  of  the  three  divine  persons,  soon 
"  led  to  that  of  their  perfect  equality  with  respect 
"  to  all  divine  perfections ;  and  this  completed  the 
"  scheme.  According  to  it,  though  there  is  but 
"  one  God,  there  are  three  divine  persons,  each  of 

•  Dr.  Priestley's  Hist,  of  Early  Opinions,  p.  282,283. 
t  Ibid.  p.  283. 


56  tEl'TER    IV. 

"  which,  separately  taken,  is  perfect  God,  though 
"  all  together  make  no  more  than  one  perfect  God : 
"  a  proposition  not  only  repugnant  to  the  plainest 
"  principles  of  common  sense,  but  altogether  un- 
"  known  before  the  council  of  J\'tce^  as  is  acknow- 
"  ledged  by  many  learned  Trinitarians*." 

I  SHALL  add  one  paragraph  more  from  Dr.  Priest- 
ley's summary  view  of  the  evidence  for  the  primitive 
Christians  having  held  the  doctrino  of  the  simple 
humanity  of  Christ,  "  There  is  a  pretty  easy  gra- 
•'  dation  (says  he)  in  the  progress  of  the  doctrine 
"  of  the  divinity  of  Christ ;  as  he  was  first  thought 
"  to  be  a  God  in  some  qualified  sense  of  the  word, 
"  a  distinguished  emanation  from  the  supreme 
"  mind ;  and  then  the  logos^  or  the  wisdom  of  God 
"  personified :  and  this  logos  was  first  thought  to 
"  be  only  occasionally  detached  from  the  Deity,  and 
"  then  drawn  into  his  essence  again,  before  it  was 
"  imagined  that  it  had  a  permanent  personality,  dis- 
"  tinct  from  that  of  the  source  from  whence  it 
"  sprung,  that  it  ivas  not  till  the  fourth  century^  that 
"  this  Logos,  or  Christ,  was  thought  to  be  properly 
"  equal  to  the  Father.  Whereas,  on  tlie  other  hand, 
"  though  it  is  now  pretended,  that  the  apostles 
"  taught  tjie  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ ;  yet 
"  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  in  the  very  time  of  the 
"  apostles,  the  Jewish  church,  and  many  ol  the 
"  gentiles  also,  held  the  opinion  of  his  being  a  merg 
"  man.  Here  the  transition  is  quite  sudden,  with- 
"  out  any  gradation  at  all.  This  must  naturally  havs 

*  Dr.Piitstley's  Hist.  orEarlyOpiiiion?,  vol.  iv.  p.  285, 59?. 


LETTER  IV.  57 

<>  given  the  greatest  alarm,  and  yet  nothing  of  this 
"  kind  can  be  perceived*." 

From  these  extracts,  the  reader  will  be  able  to 
form  a  competent  judgment  of  the  reliance  which 
is  to  be  placed  upon  my  correspondent's  assertion, 
that  "  according  to  Dr.  Priestley,  the  very  first  step 
"  of  deviation  from  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ, 
"  was  the  ascription  to  him  of  a  nature  truly  and 
"  p/operly  divinef." 

This  gentleman  has  been  pleased  to  affirm,  "  that 
"  implicit  reliance  cannot  be  placed  on  Dr.  Priest- 
"  ley's  representations,  even  in  cases  of  the  plainest 
"  fact:^-"  How  far  this  charge  is  applicable  to  that 
truly  venerable  character,  will  be  the  subject  of  in- 
quiry in  my  next  letter.  In  the  mean  time,  my  advice 
to  my  worthy  correspondent  is,  to  look  well  at  home. 
Such  indeed  is  his  strange  misapprehension,  and 
consequent  mis-statement,  of  the  most  obvious  facts, 
that  V  ithout  meaning  any  reflection  upon  his  vera- 
city, I  am  inclined  to  think  that  a  cautious  reader 
will,  for  the  future,  be  7nore  disposed  to  believe  what 
he  shall  firove^  than  what  he  shall  say. 

It  is,  I  think,  the  observation  of  Montaigne,  "  Let 
"  no  man  say  I  will  write  a  little  book."  I  was  far 
from  expecting,  when  I  began  to  write,  that  my 
animadversions  would  have  extended  to  so  great  a 
length.  But  I  found  it  impossible  to  repel  the 
point-blank  charges  of  ignorance,  of  inadvertency, 
of  misrepresentation,  and  asserting  the  precise  re- 
verse of  acknowledged  fact,  which  my  zealous  cor- 

*  Dr.  Pi-ieslln's  Hist,  of  Early  Opinions,  p.  311,  312. 

+  I.ctiiT!  to  Mr.  B.  p.  119.  \  Letters,  p.  130. 


58  LETTER    IV. 

respondent  has  accumulated  against  me,  with  an 
unsparing  hand,  without  stating  the  evidence  upon 
which  my  convictions  were  founded.  If  you  will 
permit  me  to  trouble  you  with  one  letter  more,  I 
believe  I  may  now  explicitly  promise,  that  you  shall 
receive  no  more  last  words  from, 
Dear  Sir, 

Your  humble  Servant,  Sec. 


BETTER   Y. 


Tin-  cliaifje  np:ai;iit  Dr.  Prifstloj 's  character  stated  ami  repelled. — Dr. 
Priestley  and  liis  accuser  equally  mistaken  in  a  passage  from  Chi-j  sostom.— 
Tlie  nature  and  conduct  of  Dr.  Priestley's  argument  represented  and 
\  indicated. — Conclusion. 


DEAR    SIR, 

My  redoubted  opponent  having  in  imagination 
given  me  the  coitfi  de  grace^  like  a  valorous  knight 
sets  out  again  in  quest  of  new  adventures ;  and 
elated  with  presumed  success,  he  hesitates  not  to 
tilt  a  lance  with  the  great  champion  of  the  theolo- 
gical field :  and  having,  as  he  thinks,  plucked  a 
feather  from  the  crest  of  his  mighty  antagonist,  he 
annexes  it  to  his  own  as  a  trophy  of  victory.  How 
far  he  is  entitled  to  the  triumph  which  he  claims, 
it  is  our  present  business  to  inquire. 

The  allegation  which  my  correspondent  under- 
takes to  establish*,  is  indeed  of  no  inconsiderable 
moment,  viz.  that  "  implicit  ueliance  cannot 

"   BE  SAFELY   PLACED   ON   DU.  PUIESTLEy's  REPRE- 
SENTATIONS,   EVEN    IN    CASES  OF   THE   PLAINEST 


U 


"  FACTS." 

It  is  an  old  and  approved  maxim  amongst  us 
•theological  disputants,  when  we  do  not  find  it  easy 

*    Letten  to  Mr.  B.  p.  130. 


*0  I.ETTRR   V. 

or  convenient  to  reply  to  our  opponent's  argument, 
to  do  all  we  can  to  depreciate  his  work,  and  to  dis- 
suade our  readers  from  looking  into  it,  or  troubling 
themselves  about  it.  This  manoeuvre  has.  been 
played  off  with  great  industry,  and  some  effect, 
against  the  writings  of  Dr.  Priestley.  The  learned 
bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  in  particular,  excelled  in  this 
species  of  controversial  tactics  :  and  my  worthy  cor- 
respondent, if  not  equal  in  ability,  is  not  at  all  defi- 
cient in  good  will.  But  the  armour  which  was  proof 
against  the  iron  mace  of  the  Brobdingnag  knight, 
is  not  likely  to  be  much  injured  by  the  brittle  reed 
of  the  Lilliputian  squire. 

"  Implicit  reliance  cannot  safely  be  placed  upon 
"  Dr.  Priestley's  representations,  even  in  cases  of 
"  the  plainest  facts." — To  substantiate  so  grave  a 
charge,  it  would  be  natural  to  expect  a  considerable 
induction  of  very  plain  facts,  which  have  been  mis- 
represented by  Dr.  Priestley.  Instead  of  which, 
the  gentleman  who  brings  the  accusation  presents 
us  with  three  passages,  out  of  a  collection  of  nearly 
two  thousand  from  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers, 
in  which  he  apprehends  that  the  learned  and  inde- 
fatigable historian  of  Early  Opinions  has,  not  indeed 
misquoted,  nor  mistranslated,  but  merely  misunder- 
stood, his  author.  And  this,  forsooth,  is  the  evi- 
dence upon  which  that  venerable  character  is  to  be 
dragged  forth,  and  arraigned  at  the  tribunal  "of  the 
public,  as  unfit  to  be  trusted  in  representations  even 
of  tlie  plainest  facts. 

I  AM  no  advocate  for  the  infallibility  of  Dr.  Priest- 
Icy.     His  noble  and  ingenuous  spirit  pretended  to 


I.ETTER    V.  61 

no  exemption  from  infirmities  incident  to  human 
nature :  and  with  (rue  magnanimity  he  eagerly  soli- 
cited, and  gratefully  acknowledged,  the  correction 
of  any  mistakes  into  which  he  had  inadvertently 
fallen.  I  freely  admit  that  Dr.  Priestley's  accuser 
has,  in  one  instance,  detected  a  singular  misappre- 
hension of  the  connection  of  an  obscure  passage, 
which  that  learned  writer  has  extracted  from  the 
works  of  Chrysostom  ;  though  I  am  far  from  being 
satisfied  that  the  gentleman,  who  has  with  so  much 
parade  pointed  out  the  error,  is  himself  at  all  nearer 
to  the  truth,  in  his  own  construction  of  the  passage. 
Dr.  Priestley  says,  that  "  Chrysostom  represents  all 
"  the  fireceding  ivriters  of  the  JVew  Testament  as  chil- 
"  di'en  who  heard  but  did  not  understand  things,  and 
"  who  were  busy  about  cheesecakes  and  childish 
"  sports  ;  but  John  taught,  what  the  angels  them- 
"  selves  did  not  know  before  he  declared  it*."  My 
correspondent  justly  observes,  that  the  clause  as  it 
stands  in  Chrysostom  is  "  all  the  rest,"  and  that  the 
persons  referred  to  in  it,  are  not  "  the  writers  of  the 
"  New  Testament."  So  far  we  are  obliged  to  him 
for  correcting  an  inadvertence  of  the  learned  author. 
But  when  he  adds  that  "  the  antecedent  is  the 
"  effeminate  and  dissipated  spectators  of  athletic 
*'  games,  and  the  auditors  of  musicians  and  orato- 
"  rical  sophists,"  he  errs  as  widely  from  the  mark 
as  the  great  man  whom  he  so  severely  censures.  If 
my  worthy  correspondent  will  have  the  goodness, 
as  he  advises  me,  to  take  down  his  Chrysostom 

•  Hist,  of  Karly  Opinions,  vol.  iii.  p.  128, 129. 

6 


6"2  LEl'TKU   V. 

again,  and  to  re\ise  the  context  with  a  little  more 
attention,  he  will  find,  that  by  the  exceptive  clause 
"  all  the  rest,"  the  orator  intends  all  men  "  who  not 
"  being  angels  already,  nor  ambitious  of  becoming 
"  such,  do  nevertheless  occasionally  hear  the  words 
"  of  the  evangelist."  This  declamatory  writer,  in 
his  preface  to  John's  gospel,  representing  the  evan- 
gelist under  the  character  of  one  who  exhibits 
himself  upon  the  public  stage,  amongst  other  cir- 
cumstances, describes  his  situation  in  these  words : 
"  His  proscenium,  or  stage,  is  the  whole  heaven, 
"  his  theatre  is  the  habitable  world,  his  spectators 
"  and  hearers  are  all  the  angels,  and  of  the  human 
"  race,  those  who  are  already  angels,  or  who  desire 
"  to  become  such  ;  for  they  only  can  rightly  under- 
"  stand  this  harmony,  and  shew  it  by  their  works. 
^'  As  to  all  the  rest,  like  little  children,  who  hear, 
"  but  understand  not  what  they  hear,  and  are  cap- 
"  tivated  with  cakes  and  childish  toys,  so  these  like- 
"  wise  being  gay,  luxurious,  and  devoted  to  wealth, 
"  to  power,  and  to  pleasure,  sometimes  indeed  hear 
"  the  words  that  are  sJioke?i,  but  exhibit  nothing 
"  great  or  sublime  in  their  actions,  because  they 
"  have  immured  themselves  in  brick  and  clay*." 

Who  were  the  persons  intended  by  the  rhetori- 
cal expression  "  men  who  are  already  angels,  or 

*  &ecc]xi  $e  xKt  UK^omleii,  7rav7c5  ayytXci,  y.u:  ay^-^UTruv 
cQ-aiTTt^  ccy/iX'H  TV'/^u.i'OVTiv  3v7f«>  i}  "«'  yevsirSxi  t^rtS-v- 
fMvo-iv  OTTOl  TAP  MONOI  rxvlr.i  ccx^toM^  eyrxxovcxt 
evv»ivl'  otv  Tiii  ci^f^victi  -  ui  OirE  AAAOI  ITANTES  x»$oi- 
Ti^  7«fr  TTXleiX  K.  7.  ^.  Clirysostoii)  in  Joan.  Homil.  i.  0\>\>.  'loin.  li. 
p.  550.  Ell.  Eton.  1012. 


LtlTER    \  .  Do 

"  Avho  are  desirous  of  becoming  such,"  the  author 
has  not  distinctly  explained.  Possibly,  Chrysostom 
might  allude  to  the  epistles  to  the  seven  churches 
of  Asia  in  the  Apocalypse,  in  which  the  bishops,  or 
pastors  of  the  churches,  are  styled  angelsf  and  might 
mean  the  priesthood,  and  the  candidates  for  holy 
orders,  as  opposed  to  the  laity.  But,  more  proba- 
bly, the  eloquent  father  intends  those  speculative 
and  philosophising  Christians,  who  \»ere  initiated 
into  the  mysteries  of  the  orthodox  faith,  and  who 
passed  their  lives  in  these  sublime  speculations.  It 
is  in  contradistinction  to  these  angelic  personages, 
that  unlearned  Christians,  who  contented  them- 
selves with  plain  matters  of  fact,  who  understood 
the  scriptures  in  their  literal  sense,  and  who  en- 
gaged in  the  usual  occupations  of  life  without 
troubling  themselves  about  unintelligible  notions, 
or  aspiring  to  the  character  of  ascetics,  or  philoso- 
phers, arc  contemptuously  represented  as  children, 
amusing  themselves  with  cakes  and  toys,  under- 
standing nothing  which  they  heard,  and  immersed 
in  worldly  pleasures  and  pursuits.  This  interpreta- 
•  tion  will  not  appear  improbable,  to  those  who  know 
in  what  contempt  plain  and  unlearned  Christians 
were  held,  by  men  who  fancied  that  they  possessed 
a  deep  insight  into  the  mystical  sense  of  the  evan- 
gelical history.  Admitting  this  to  be  the  true 
meaning  of  this  obscure  passage,  it  would  not  be 
irrelevant  to  Dr.  P.'s  piu'pose,  though  not  exactly 
in  the  sense  in  which  he  has  cited  it :  the  allusion 
bc!ng,  not  to  the  preceding  writers  of  the  New 


64 


LETTER  V. 


Testament,  but,  to  the  mass  of  unlearned  Chris- 
tians*. 

The  reverend  letter-writer,  rightly  judging  that 
a  single  instance  of  erroneous  interpretation,  select- 
ed from  a  collection  of  almost  two  thousand  pas- 
sages, would  hardly  be  thought  sufficient  to  convict 
a  person  of  Dr.  Priestley's  established  reputation  of 
the  charge  alleged,  drags  in  another  passage,  quoted 
■by  Dr.  Priestley  from  the  same  writer,  to  bolster 
up  the  infirm  evidence  of  the  first.  "  Dr.  Priestley 
"  proceeds.  But  John,  he  (i.  e.  Chrysostom)  says, 
"  taught  what  the  angels  themselves  did  not  know 
"  before  he  declared  itf  :  and  he  represents  them 
"  as  his  most  attentive  auditors  \."  It  is  not  pre- 
tended that  this  sentence  is  not  correctly  cited.  And, 
as  the  gentleman  who  brings  the  impeachment,  has 
not  condescended  to  shew,  how  a  correct  quotation 
of  an  author's  words  proves  that  no  reliance  is  to  be 
placed  upon  the  I'epresentations  of  the  person  who 

*  In  this  way  it  is  easy  to  nccount  for  Dr.  PncstUy's  mistal^e.  He  l;a(l 
pvobahly  noted  this  as  a  i>assage  which  was  much  to  his  i)uq)Osc  ofillustra^ 
ing  the  clitrercncc  which  suhsisted  between  the  learned  and  uiikanied 
Christians,  and  the  contempt  with  which  the  laltt  r  were  (reaieil  by  tl.e 
former  for  not  adoplinp;  their  mysterious  speculations.  But  forgetting  the 
reference,  he  understood  tlie  expression,  all  the  vst,  as  n  lining  to  ilie  pit- 
cedlng  evangehsts:  in  which  supposition  he  wouUl  he  confirmed  by  the 
long  quotations  which  immediately  succee<l,  and  in  which  his  author  really 
does  represent  the  other  evangelists,  as  having  taught  litile,  or  nothing,  oi' 
tlie  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  or  divine  nature  of  Christ,  in  comparison  with 
John.  At  any  rate,  thi<  passage  from  Chi-ysostom  has  no  more  contiectioii 
with  the  spectators  of  the  games,  and  the  auditors  of  musicians  and  sophists, 
than  it  has  with  the  inhabitants  ofChina,  or  the  Moon.  I  should,  however, 
regard  it  as  unpardonable  asperity,  to  charge  my  coiTespondi  lit  ai  unfit  to 
be  relied  upon  in  his  representations  of  the  plainest  facts,  merely  because  he 
haa  misapplied  an  obsctuv  passage  in  Chrvsostom. 

t  Chrjsostom  Opp.  ibid.  Tom.  ii.  p.  ?56.  Ed.  Eton.  1612. 

t  Letters,  p.  125. 


LETTER   \.  65 

makes  the  quotation,  we  may  safely  dismiss  this 
evidence  without  any  further  questions.  It  is  true 
that  the  accuser  puts  the  question,  "  Is  it  possible 
"  that  Dr.  Priestley  could  read  the  above  passage 
"  so  as  ever  to  dream  of  the  interpretation  he  has 
"  put  upon  it  ?*"  But  as  Dr.  Priestley  has  put  no 
interpretation  whatever  upon  the  passage,  and  has 
left  it  to  speak  for  itself,  this  observation  may  be 
passed  by,  as  a  dream  of  the  ingenious  gentleman 
who  produces  the  charge. 

In  a  situation  precisely  similar,  stands  the  next 
evidence  brought  forward  to  confirm  the  accusa- 
tion. The  passage  as  cited  by  Dr.  P.  is  as  follows : 
"  Leaving  the  Father  (he  says)  he  (John)  discoursed 
*'  concerning  the  Son,  because  the  Father  was 
"  known  to  all,  if  not  as  a  Father  yet  as  God ;  but 
"  the  only  begotten  was  unknownf."  The  correct- 
ness of  the  quotation  from  Chrysostom  is  not  ques- 
tioned ;  but  it  is  alleged,  that  the  word  all  is  to  be 
understood,  "  of  the  7nass  of  mankind."  This  is  not 
probable :  but  whether  it  be,  or  be  not,  Dr.  Priest- 
ley is  not  concerned  in  it,  for  he  only  cites  the 
passage  without  any  comment. 

Upon  such  evidence  does  this  very  candid  writer 
found  his  conclusion,  "  that  implicit  reliance  cannot 
"  be  safely  placed  on  Dr.  Priestley's  representations, 
"  even  in  cases  of  the  plainest  facts." 

Having  thus  produced  passages  which  Dr.  Priest- 
Icy  has  cited  correctly,  in  order  to  prove  that  he  is 

»    LettciN,  p.  126. 

t    Chrysostom  Opp.  Tom.  ii.  p.  SG2.  EU.  Eton.— History  of  Early  Opi. 
iiioiis,  vol.  iii.  p.  129.— Lettei-s,  p,  Mf',  127. 


66  LETTER  \. 

not  to  be  depended  upon,  to  crown  his  arguniciu, 
this  sagacious  critic  next  brings  forward  a  passage 
which  that  learned  writer  has  never  cited  at  all,  as 
a  "  proof  how  totally  Dr.  Priestley  has  misunder- 
"  stood  Chrysostom's  extravagant  oratory*."  Surely 
such  criticisms  must  have  been  impoi'ted  from  the 
banks  of  the  Shannon. 

Perhaps  my  coiTespondcnt  may  plead,  that  he 
has  qualified  the  charge  with  the  epithet  imjilicit. 
But  if  he  meant  no  more  than  that  implicit  faith  is 
not  to  be  placed  in  man,  what  occasion  was  there 
for  pompous  proofs,  and  solemn  professions  of  can- 
dour, to  introduce  so  trite  a  truisin  ?  But  if  the 
writer  means  any  thing,  he  means  to  insinuate,  that 
Dr.  Priestley  is  not  to  be  depended  upon  eciually 
with  other  learned  authors ;  and  it  cannot  be  doubt- 
ed that  the  expression,  ''  implicit  reliance  cannot  be 
"  safely  placed  on  Dr.  Priestley,"  would  by  super- 
ficial readers  be  understood  to  signify,  that  no  con- 
fidence at  all  was  to  be  placed  in  his  assertions ;  an 
insinuation,  which  if  it  was  intended,  is  as  unfounded, 
as  it  is  illiberal. 

I  SCRUPLE  not  to  declare  my  firm  conviction,  that 
lightly  as  this  reverend  gentleman  affects  to  treat 
Dr.  Priestley's  testimony,  he  docs  not  himself  give 

'■  •  Letters,  p.  127,  123.  The  piiiiiort  of  tlieautliOr's  qiiolntious  from  tlie 
tlilixl  Homily  is  (o  shew  (hat  Chrysoilom  ttaihes,  that  "  John  chd  not  so 
"  confine  himself  to  the  Lo^os,  as  eniirely  to  negli  ct  the  human  naiiiie  of 
■'  Christ,  nor  diil  tlie  other  evangelists  conCne  themselves  so  entirely  to  the 
•'  human  nature,  as  to  l)e  silent  eoncernin;;  his  eternal  pi-e^.-xistence."  This 
Dr.  Priestley  never  denied.  See  Hist,  ol  Opiiuons,  vol.  iii.  p  128.  But  he 
(ruly  affirms  that  Chi-ysoston.'s  not:on  is,  that  Join)  taught  tlearly  and  ex- 
plicitly, what  they  only  ventured  to  hint  at.  And  this  is  evident  froni,'lw 
lontext  of  this  vcrj'  passage  wliieh  m\  corrcs]>cndeiU  <n:oles. 


LETTER    V.  &7 

credit  to  the  charge,  to  the  extent  in  which  it  will 
naturally  and  inevitably  be  understood,  by  those  who 
place  implicit  confidence  in  him.  If  my  correspon- 
dent has  read  that  learned  work,  the  authority  of 
which  he  has  thought  fit  to  impugn,  I  will  venture 
to  assert,  that  it  is  not  in  his  power,  if  he  possesses 
a  capacity  to  appreciate  moral  evidence,  to  withhold 
his  assent  from  the  fact  established  by  Dr.  Priest- 
ley, upon  the  testimony  of  passages  which  he  pro- 
duces from  Chrysostom  himself,  that  this  eloquent 
father  means  to  affirm,  that  John  was  the  first  evan- 
gelist, M'ho  ventured  openly  and  explicitly  to  assert 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  a  doctrine  which  the 
other  evangelists  had  with  great  and  commendable 
caution,  if  not  passed  over  entirely,  at  most,  hinted 
at  very  obscurely,  that  they  might  not  give  offence 
to  their  readers.  But  the  object  of  most  of  Dr. 
Priestley's  opponents  is,  not  to  reply  to  his  argu- 
ments, but  to  make  their  ignorant  admirers  believe, 
that  his  works  are  not  Avorthy  of  a  perusal,  by  un- 
justly stigmatizing  his  character,  as  an  inattentive 
and  incorrect  writer. 

Dr.  Priestley's  argument  for  the  unitarian 
doctrine,  from  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  eccle- 
siastical writers,  is  original  and  masterly,  and  in  my 
judgment  clear  and  decisive  ;  but  being  new,  it  has 
been  greatly  misunderstood  and  misrepresented. 
Former  theologians  have  appealed  to^the  fathers,  as 
advocates  for  the  doctrines  which  they  themselves 
espoused  ;  and  have  endeavoured  to  support  the 
credit  of  their  respective  systems,  by  the  authority 
■  of  the  venerable  confessors  of  tlie  primitive  church. 


68  LETTER   V. 

Dr.  Priestley  has  chosen  very  different  ground :  he 
is  the  first  controversial  writer  who  has  -scntured 
openly  to  declare,  that  his  doctrine  is  in  direct 
opposition  to  that  of  the  great  names  to  whose 
authority  he  appeals,  and  who  have  hitherto  been 
generally  regarded  as  the  authorized  expositors  of 
the  christian  faith.  He  allows  that  very  few,  if  any, 
of  these  eminent  men  were,  properly  speaking, 
Unitarians  in  principle.  Nay,  that  they  even  held 
the  doctrine  of  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ  in 
contempt  and  abhorrence,  and  that  they  opposed  it 
to  the  utmost  of  their  power.  He  nevertheless 
contends,  that  the  great  body  of  Christians,  both 
Jews  and  Heathens,  for  the  three  first  centuries, 
were  strenuous  advocates  for  the  proper  unity  of 
God,  and  that  they  zealously  opposed  the  gnostic, 
the  platonic,  and  the  arian  doctrines  as  they  were 
successively  introduced,  and  all  the  other  wild  spe- 
culations of  the  philosophizing  Christians  which 
were  invented  to  shelter  themselves  from  the  dis- 
grace of  being  the  disciples  of  a  low-born  Jew,  wlio 
had  been  ignominiously  executed  as  a  common  male- 
factor. This  alarm  of  the  unlearned  Christians  was 
so  general,  and  the  dislike  of  the  new  doctrines 
was  so  deeply  rooted,  that  it  was  with  very  great 
difficulty,  and  not  till  after  a  great  length  of  time, 
that  they  were  brought  quietly  to  acquiesce  in  them. 
These  important  facts  are  established  by  Dr. 
Priestley  upon  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  writers 
of  the  christian  church.  Not  indeed  upon  their 
direct  assertion  :  this  could  hardly  be  expected,  and 
would  be  liable  to  suspicion.     The  evidence  which 


l.IiTTEIl  V. 


G9 


the  learned  historian  of  Early  Opinions  cluefly  pro- 
duces, and  upon  wliich  he  lays  the  principal  stress, 
is  tiiat  of  inadvertent  concession,  of  incidental  re- 
mark, of  complaint,  of  caution,  of  affected  candour, 
of  apology,  of  inference,  which,  thougli  indirect,  is 
at  the  same  time,  the  most,  satisfactory,  to  the  in- 
quisitive and  reflecting  mind.  It  is  that  species  of 
evidence  which  judicious  readers  so  much  admire 
in  Dr.  Paley's  Horne  Paulina,  and  similar  to  that  by 
which  the  rapid  progress,  and  consec^uently  the  truth 
of  the  christian  religion,  is  established  by  the  unwil- 
ling testimony  of  heathen  writers. 

But  if  these  facts  arc  established,  the  conclusion 
follows  immediately.  No  person  of  reflection  caa 
for  a  moment  maintain,  that  the  apostles  believed, 
and  distinctly  taught,  the  pre-existcnce  and  divinity 
of  their  master,  and  that  the  great  mass  of  their 
converts  were  unbelievers  in  their  testimony.  The 
primitive  Christians  to  avoid  reproach,  were  under 
the  strongest  temptations  to  exalt  the  person  and 
dignity  of  their  teacher;  but  surely  they  could  have 
no  motive  to  derogate  from,  and  to  reduce  it.  If 
then  the  unitarian  doctrine  was  the  faith  of  the 
primitive  church,  it  must  have  been  the  faith  of 
the  apostles  themselves,  and  therefore  this  doctrine 
must  be  true. 

In  order  to  establish  this  important  fact,  the 
learned  historian  of  Early  Opinions  has,  with  won- 
derful industry  and  sagacity,  selected  upwards  of 
eighteen  hundred  passages  from  the  early  eccle- 
idastical  writers,  all  of  which,  in  his  estimation, 
tend  in  one  wav  or  another,  to  iflustrate  and  confirm 


"0  LETTER   V. 

the  unitaiianism  of  the  great  body  oi"  unlearned 
Christians  in  the  primitive  ages*  ! 

It  would  indeed  be  marvellous  in  the  highest 
degree  if,  in  so  great  a  number  of  quotations,  some 
passages  Avcre  not  misquoted,  misunderstood,  or 
misapplied,  and  if  there  should  not,  here  and  there, 
be  found  some  gross  and  palpable  errors.  This 
opens  an  ample  held  to  pedling  criticism  :  and  if  in 
two,  or  three,  or  half  a  dozen  instances,  an  over- 
sight is  discovered,  however  insignificant,  the  hue 
and  cry  is  immediately  raised,  "  Dr.  Priestley's 
"  representations  are  not  to  be  trusted,  even  in  the 
"  plainest  facts." 

To  offer  ai'guments  to  minds  incapable  of  com- 
prehending them,  or  indisposed  to  admit  them, 
would  be  a  waste  of  time  and  labour.  But  the  judi- 
cious reader  will  easily  perceive  that  such  objections 
are  of  no  weight.  Scores,  and  hundreds,  of  passages 
may  be  spared,  and  yet  the  argument  remain  valid. 
It  is  indeed  surprizing  that  in  so  great  a  number  of 
quotations,  so  few  material  errors  should  have  been 
detected  by  Dr.  Priestley's  learned  and  quick-sight- 
ed antagonists.  But  I  am  convinced  that  the  clear, 
though  unwilling  testimony  of  Justin   Maityr,   of 

*  See  Mr.  Lindsiy's  Vliuliciic  Pricstlciaiisf,  p.  3:!5.  Tliis  excellent  writer 
obsen'es,  that  in  a  work  or  such  compass  and  oxteiit  as  tins  History  of  Early 
Opinions  concerning  Jtsiis  Christ,  in  which  you  have  tJie  woitls  of  the  ori- 
ginal writirs  themselves,  it  was  scarcely  to  he  expected  that  no  niist:<kes 
would  1)0  committed.  Tlie  author  foresaw  it  to  he  una\<)i<lable,  and  desired 
all  allowance  lo  be  7nadr,  and  to  be  told  lii<  faults,  and  he  would  pladly  cor- 
rect lliein.  Tliey  lia\e,  however,  turned  out  much  I'ewer  than  could  have 
been  imagined,  and  none  of  thiiu  in  the  least  affectinp;  his  maiTi  propositions 
and  conclusions,  though  lie  has  been  told  of  them  in  an  unhandsome  wav. 
Sec  the  Appendix. 


Tertullian,  of  Origcn,  of  Athanasius,  and  of  Chry- 
sostom,  to  the  unitarianism  of  the  primitive  church, 
and  to  the  great  caution  of  the  apostles  in  divulging 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity,  can  never  be  resist- 
ed by  any  fair  reasoning.  To  say  that  Origcn  was 
a  liar,  and  Tertullian  in  a  pet,  is  a  sort  of  reply 
which  considerate  persons  well  know  how  to  appre- 
ciate. 

To  press  the  venerable  fathers  of  the  church,  (to 
whose  authority  servile  submission  has  been  so  often 
challenged,  and  so  abjectly  yielded,)  to  give  evidence 
against  themselves,  and  to  confute  them  by  their 
own  testimony,  was  an  original  and  happy  thought 
of  the  learned  historian  of  Ancient  Opinions  con- 
cerning the  Person  of  Christ,  and  was  worthy  the 
great  and  adventurous  genius  of  Dr.  Priestley.  And 
though  minute  critics  may  have  discovered  minute 
errors  in  his  numerous  quotations,  yet  none  of  them 
have  in  the  least  degree  affected  his  conclusions ; 
and  I  will  venture  to  predict  that  they  never  will. 
The  more  severely  the  argument  is  investigated, 
and  the  better  it  is  understood,  the  more  luminous, 
the  more  satisfactory,  and  the  more  decisive,  it  will 
appear. 

Of  the  opponents  of  Dr.  Priestley,  my  corres- 
pondent refers  to  Dr.  Williams,  "whose  objections 
"  to  the  whole  structure"  of  Dr.  Priestley's  argu- 
ment "  wore,  in  his  opinion,  worthy  of  very  serious 
attention,"  but  were  only  "  noticed  in  a  wav  of 
"  private  compiiment*."     I  have  never  seen  Dr. 

*  I.clki-s  P- 120. 


72  LETTER  V. 

Williams's  work  ;  but  if  his  objections  are  correctly 
stated  by  his  friend,  viz.  that  Dr.  Priestley's  "  mode 
"  of  argument  has  long  ago  been  solidly  refuted ; 
"  that  it  is  plainly  reprehended  by  Jesus  Christ ; 
"  that  it  is  highly  untheological  in  its  just  conse- 
"  quences,"  and  the  like,  I  confess  I  do  not  see  what 
other  reply  Dr.  Priestley  could  with  propriety  have 
made  to  such  objections,  than  by  a  civil  bow. 

But  it  seems  the  great  strength  of  the  cause 
rests  upon  Dr.  Jamieson's  "  elaborate  and  learned 
"  work,"  which,  we  are  told,  "  is  the  very  pcrform- 
"  ance  which  Dr.  Priestley  had  so  long  desired  and 
"  challenged,"  which  therefore  "  had  a  just  chiim 
"  on  his  particular  and  public  notice.*"  This  much- 
extolled  work,  by  the  favour  of  an  eminent  and  re- 
spectable calvinistic  minister  in  the  metropolisf,  I 
had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  when  it  was  first  pub- 
lished, and  I  perused  it  with  a  considerable  degree 
of  attention.  But  I  acknowledge,  that  the  arguments 
and  criticisms  made  very  little  impression  upon  my 
mind.  Perhaps  I  was  not  disposed  to  rate  very 
highly  the  judgment  of  a  writer,  who  in  his  zeal 
for  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  appeals  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  devil,  as  an  evidence  of  its  truth.  This 
work  of  Dr.  Jamieson's  was  I  believe  never  seen  by 
Dr.  Priestley  ;  and  we  have  abundant  evidence,  that 
the  time  of  that  great  philosopher  and  divine,  was 
much  better  employed  during  his  exile,  than  in 
writing  an  answer  to  it.  And  indeed,  what  answer 
does  it  recjuire  ?  These  learned   works  are  both 

*  Letten  to  Mr.  B,  p.  121,  t  Rev.  Mr.  Towle- 


l.ETTER  V.  /3 

before  the  public ;  and  men  of  erudition,  who  are 
competent  to  judge,  and  desirous  to  learn,  may 
easily  compare  them,  and  draw  the  conclusion  for 
themselves. 

Having  thus  finished  my  animadversions  upon 
the  strictures  of  my  correspondent,  and  established 
a  defence  both  of  my  own  assertions,  and  of  Dr. 
Priestley's  insulted  character,  which,  I  trust,  will 
prove  satisfactory  to  the  judicious,  unprejudiced, 
and  well-informed  reader  ;  I  now  willingly  take 
leave  of  the  controversy,  subscribing  myself, 
Dear  Sir, 

Very  sincerely  your's, 

T.  BELSHAM 

Hackney,  A  piil  17, 1805. 


APPENDIX, 

Cgntaining  an  Extract  from  a  publication  of  the  Rev.  Theophilus  Lindsej, 
which  expresses  the  judgment  of  that  learned  writer,  concerning  the  issue 
of  the  controvei"sy  between  Dr.  Priestley  and  Dr.  Horslty,  and  contemiiig 
the  importance  of  Dr.  Priestley's  Histoi-j-  of  Early  Opinions  concerning 
Jesus  Christ.* 

This  work  of  Dr.  Priestley's,  viz.  his  History  of 
the  Corruptions  of  Christianity,  was  not  suflered  to 
pass  without  being  controverted  by  several  persons, 
among  whom,  Dr.  Horsley  much  distinguished  him- 
self; though  by  no  means  to  his  credit  with  learned 
men  and  judges  of  the  subject.  For,  perhaps,  there 
hardly  ever  was  an  instance  in  which  a  controversial 
writer  was  so  entirely  baffled,  and  confuted  in  every 
thing  advanced  by  him,  both  from  scripture,  and 
early  antiquity,  to  invalidate  Dr.  Priestley's  posi- 
tions, as  has  been  verified,  with  respect  to  Dr. 
Horsley.  And  this  is  the  opinion  of  not  a  few 
among  the  learned,  who  are  far  from  favouring  Dr. 
Priestley's  peculiar  sentiments. 

In  consequence  of  this  discussion  of  the  subject 
with  Dr.  Horsley,  yet  not  with  a  view  to  add  to  his 
triumphs  over  him,  but  for  his  own  satisfaction,  and 
that  of  others,  the  learned  more  especially.  Dr. 
Priestley  undertook  this  his  herculean  work.f     In 

•  Mr.  Lindsey's  Address  to  the  Youth  of  the  two  Uni  vei-sities,  p.  337—2-13. 
p.irt  i.  1783. 

+  The  Hisloi-j-  of  Early  Opinions  concerning  Jesus  Cluist,  compiled  from 
ori^al  wrircrt.  proving  that  the  tlni'tian  church  was  at  first  Unitarian  .- 


Vl'PENUlX.  '^ 

this  he  has  brouglit  to  light  and  displayed  a  \  ast  ac- 
cumulation of  evidence,.unknown  before,  to  "  prove 
"  the  truth  and  untitiuity,  as  he  himself  speaks,  of 
•'  the  proper  unitarian  doctrine,  in  opposition  to  the 
"  trinitarian  and  arian  hypotheses,"  deriving  his  in- 
formation from  the  first  sources  only,  having  perused 
all  the  original  authors  from  the  beginning,  and 
produced  almost  two  thousand  passages  from  them, 
and  having  many  others  in  reserve,  equally  impor- 
tant, if  needed,  to  establish  the  facts  for  which  he 
pleads. 

Concerning,  however,  this  lav^cjield,  or  more 
justly  to  speak,  this  overgrown  wood  of  Christian 
antiquity,  which  our  author  alone  has  cleared  up, 
and  in  which  he  has  made  such  discoveries,  I  would 
beg  leave  to  observe  to  you  ; 

I.  That  before  he  led  the  way,  we  were  all  much 
in  confusion,  and  had  no  distinct  ideas  concerning 
that  great  corruption  of  the  gospel,  and  of  genuine 
Christianity,  called  Arimiism  :  I  mean  the  doctrine 
which  makes  Jesus  Christ  to  have  been  a  great  pre- 
existent  spirit,  next  to  the  eternal  God,  and  deriv- 
ing his  being  from  him  ;  who  condescended  to  come 
into  this  world  of  our's,  and  to  animate  a  human 
body,  shrunk  from  his  original  dignity  and  power, 
first  into  the  state  of  an  embryo,  next  into  that  of 
a  helpless  infant,  till  by  degrees  he  became  rational, 
8cc.  &c. 

in  Tour  vols.  1786.  This  (says  Mr.  Lindscy,  p.  33S,)  is  the  most  curious  and 
vahmble  of  all  Dr.  Priestlty's  works ;  and  I  risk  nothing  in  adding,  that  it 
couhl  only  be  executed  In  the  manner  it  has  been  done,  by  a  superior  genius 
like  his  own. 


f> 


?'6  APPENDIX. 

This  doctrine,  which  has  no  countenance  in  the 
scriptures,  but  in  a  very  few  passages  of  plainly 
Avrong  interpretation,  Dr.  Priestley  has  proved  not 
to  have  been  known  in  the  chiistian  church  till 
about  the  time  of  Arius* :  and  has  likewise  shewn 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  platonic  fathers  concerning 
Christ,  which  probably  first  begun  with  Justin 
Martyr,  or  about  his  time,  and  has  been  mistaken 
for  it,  was  quite  another  thing:  Christ,  according  to 
them,  not  being  a  superangelic  spirit,  animating  a 
human  body,  but  the  Logos,  the  wisdom  or  reason 
of  the  Divine  Being,  his  attribute,  Avhich  these  philo- 
sophers made  a  person  of,  and  which,  according  to 
them,  bore  the  same  relation  to  the  Father,  that  the 
platonic  vy?,  which  was  their  second  principle,  bore 
to  the  first  principle,  usually  called  ayec^*?,  or  rather, 
were  the  same  with  them.      This  they  held  to  be 


»  This  inipoi'tant  fact,  wliii'h  Mr.  Limiscy  here  niciilions  as  proved  by 
Dr.  Priestley,  vix.  tliat  Ariniiisin,  or  the  Joctrine  ot'a  created  Logos  animat- 
ing the  body  of  Christ,  had  no  existence  before  the  age  of  Ariu%  a  faci 
which  is  decisi\e  of  the  arian  controversy,  has  been  brought  forward,  and 
pointedly  stated,  nearly  twenty  years,  and  it  still  remains  nnconlradictcd, 
and,  indeed,  cannot  be  controvcrttd.  Learned  Arians  have  abandontd  the 
cause,  and  seem  to  give  it  up  as  untcnalile.  It  would  surely  better  become 
them  to  repel  arguments  which  affect  the  vitals  of  tlieir  system,  flian  to 
amuse  themselves  with  verbal  controversies  about  the  word  Unitarian, 
which,  hnjjpily,  Ixing  a  terjn  of  good  repute,  is  claimed  by  all  parties,  and 
w  hich,  according  as  it  is  defined,  may  be  made  to  include  the  highest  Trini- 
tarian, or  to  exclude  even  the  lowest  Arian,  excepting  those  modern  theolo- 
gians who  limit  themselves  to  the  belief  of  the  simple  pre-existence  of  Christ. 
'J'his  hypothesis,  the  invention  of  the  eighteenth  centui7,  which  has  never 
yet  had  a  public  advocate,  but  which  is  known  to  be  the  private  opinion  of 
some  respectable  individuals,  falls  w  iiliin  tlie  limits  of  Uuitaiianism,  even 
accordnig  to  its  most  restricted  definition:  but  why  its  advocates  should 
choose  to  pass  themselves  off  as  Ar'ans  is  difficult  to  explain,  for  this  liypoi 
thesis  is  no  more  .\rianism  than  it  is  Mahometisin. 


APPENWX.  5'!' 

intimately  united  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  still  a 
man  in  their  system,  with  a  body  and  soul  like  the 
rest  of  us. 

I  MUST  own  that  this  wild  abstracted  perversion 
of  the  true  scripture  doctrine  concerning  Christ,  is 
to  me  less  exceptionable,  and  less  repugnant  to  rea- 
son, than  the  arian  doctrine  concerning  him  :  which 
is  a  heap  of  incongruous  staggering  improbabilites 
from  beginning  to  end :  whether  you  suppose  the 
great  pre-existent  spirit,  which  was  shut  up  in  a 
human  body  of  flesh  and  blood  for  thirty  years,  to 
have  been  the  first  and  principal  of  created  Beings* 
and  the  subordinate  Creator  of  all  things,  or  one  of 
an  inferior  class  with  inferior  powers. 

II.  The  distinction  of  the  opinion  of  the  early 
writers  from  that  of  the  common  people,  was  never 
before  observed  by  any  one :  and  being  a  thing 
wholly  unknown  to  the  first  Socinians,  they  were 
exceedingly  embarrassed  in  defence  of  their  senti- 
inents  in  point  of  antiquity.  But  we  here  see  the 
seeming  gap  and  chasm  filled  up  ;  and  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  apostles  concerning  their  divine  master, 
being  altogether  one  of  the  human  race,  was  also 
the  doctrine  of  all  those  that  were  immediately 
laught  by  and  succeeded  them,  a  few  speculative 
men  excepted,  who  would  be  wise  above  what  is 
written. 

III.  The  variety  of  curious  knowledge  of  facts 
and  opinions  contained  in  this  work  ;  the  illustra*- 
lions  of  the  oriental  philosophy ;  and  the  doctrine 
of  Platonism  in  particular,  never  so  well  exhibited 

before  ;  must  be  pleasing  and  instructive  to  all,  who 

7  # 


78  APPENDIX.. 

wish  to  know  the  historj'  of  the  human  mind,  au 
interesting  history  assuredly  :  so  that  throwing  even 
the  question  of  religion  aside,  it  is  a  valuable  acces- 
sion to  the  litei'ary  world,  but  connected  with  that 
important  object,  it  is  above  all  price. 

In  a  work  of  such  compass  and  extent  as  this 
History  of  Early  Opinions  concerning  Jesus  Christ, 
in  which  you  have  the  words  of  the  original  writers 
themselves,  it  was  scarcely  to  be  expected,  that  no 
mistakes  would  be  committed.  The  author  foresaw 
it  to  be  unavoidable,  and  desired  all  allowance  to  be 
made,  and  to  be  told  his  faults,  and  he  would  gladly 
correct  them.  They  have,  however,  turned  out 
much  fewer  than  could  have  been  imagined,  and 
none  of  them  in  the  least  affecting  his  main  pro- 
positions and  conclusions,  though  he  has  been  told 
of  them  in  an  unhandsome  way. 

With  respect  to  the  unworthy  insinuations  of 
some  men,  all  that  know  any  thing  of  Dr.  Priestley 
believe,  and  are  persuaded,  that  he  would  as  soon 
be  guilty  of  robbing  on  the  highway,  as  of  designedly 
misquoting  or  misinterpreting  any  passage  in  an 
ancient  writer  to  deceive  others,  and  serve  the  pur- 
pose of  a  private  party  or  opinion.  For  he  has  no 
interest  in  view,  but  that  of  truth,  nor  any  desires, 
but  to  have  that  in  the  best  way  promoted  and 
established. 


POSTSCRIPT. 


Remarks  upon  the  alterations  and  concessions  in  tUe  second  edition  of  ilit 
Letters  to  Mr.  B. 

Since  these  sheets  were  printed  off,  a  second 
edition  of  the  Letters,  which  are  the  subject  of 
animadversion  in  them,  has  made  its  appearance  ; 
upon  which,  I  beg  leave  to  offer  a  few  remarks. 

In  the  first  place,  the  writer,  in  his  Advertise- 
ment to  this  edition,  has  fairly  and  candidly  acknow- 
ledged, "  that  he  had  egregiously  misapprehended 
"  my  meaning  in  the  passage  animadverted  upon 
"  in  his  eighth  Letter,  the  whole  of  which  animad- 
"  version  is  now  expunged."  This  is  the  passage 
in  which  my  correspondent  had  charged  me  with 
asserting,  "  the  reverse  of  acknowledged  facts,"  and 
is  the  subject  of  the  fourth  Letter  of  the  preceding 
series. 

This  gentleman  has  likewise  omitted  in  his  new 
edition,  the  heavy  allegation  against  Dr.  Priestley, 
"  that  implicit  reUance  cannot  safely  be  placed  on 
"  his  representations,  even  in  cases  of  the  plainest 
"  fact."  The  reason  which  he  assigns  for  this 
omission  is,  that  "  the  paragraph  had  an  aji/iearance 
^'  of  asperity  towards  Dr.  Priestley."     IJe  might 


80  POSTSCRIPT. 

with  great  propriety  have  added,  that  the  charge 
was  both  unjust,  and  unproved. 

These  concessions  are  important,  but  they  are 
not  all  which  I  consider  myself  as  entitled  to  claim. 

This  gentleman  has  charged  me  with  misrepre- 
senting, caricaturing,  and  calumniating  Calvinism  ; 
which  allegation  he  has  attempted  to  establish,  by 
giving  a  long  detail  of  his  own  opinions,  which  he 
calls  Calvinism,  and  which  he  thinks  entitled  to 
more  honourable  mention.  My  worthy  correspon- 
dent is  at  full  liberty  to  believe  what  he  likes,  and  to 
call  his  creed  by  what  name  he  pleases.  But  most 
assuredly,  when  I  spoke  of  Calvinism,  I  did  not 
I'efer  either  to  his  particular  system,  or  to  that  of 
any  other  individual.  I  alluded  to  the  Calvinism 
which  is  exhibited  in  the  public  symbols  of  the  sect, 
which  is  taught  to  their  children,  which  is  blended 
in  their  worship.  If  tins  gentleman's  sentiments 
do  not  coincide  with  those,  they  were  not  within 
my  contemplation,  nor  were  they  the  objects  of  my 
censure.  What  I  hold  to  be  Cah  inism,  or  rather 
what  the  Calvinists  themselves  declare  to  be  their 
own  principles,  I  have  stated  in  my  first  Letter : 
and  that  statement  still  remains,  and  I  venture  to  say, 
that  it  will  i-emain  uncontradicted.  Whatever  there- 
fore my  correspondent  may  think  of  the  opinion 
which  I  entertain  of  the  tendency  of  Calvinism,  he 
has  no  right  to  persist  in  the  charge,  that  I  misre- 
present the  system. 

The  imputation  against  the  character  of  Origen 
is  not  retracted,  and  nothing  further  is  offered  in 
support  of  it,  but  a  quotation  froa-n  Daille,  which 


POSTSCRIPT.  81 

brings  a  general  allegation  of  insincerity  against  the 
fathers  in  their  polemical  writings,  but  does  not 
particularly  mention  Origen. 

I  WAS  curious  to  learn  how  my  coiTespondent, 
with  the  help  of  Dr.  Jamieson,  would  set  aside  the 
clear  and  explicit  evidence  of  Tertullian,  to  the 
strong  prejudices  of  the  great  mass  of  vmlearned 
Christians,  against  the  then  novel  and  offensive  doc. 
trine  of  the  Trinity.*  Tertullian's  words  are  these. 
Simplices  enim  quique,  ne  dixerim  imprudentes, 
et  idiotac,  cjuae  major  semper  credentium  pars  est 
— expavescunt  ad  oeconomiam.  Tiiis  is  rendered 
by  Dr.  Horsley,  "  Simple  persons,  not  to  call  them 
"  ignorant  and  idiots,  who  always  make  the  majority 
"  of  believers — startle  at  the  oeconomy."  Plainly 
meaning,  as  the  bishop  has  properly  represented 
it,  that  the  same  persons  whom  he  calls  simfilices^ 
might  have  been  denoted  by  the  harsher  epithets 
of  imprudentes  and  idiotx,,  and  that  these  persons, 
■who  made  the  majority  of  believers,  startled  at  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  passage,  my  inge- 
nious correspondent  softens  down  in  the  following 
manner,  in  the  new  translation  with  which  he  haa 
favoured  us.  "  For  some  simple  persons,  not  to 
"  speak  of  the  uninformed  and  ignorant,  who  always 
"  constitute  the  greater  part  of  believers,  tremble 
"  at  that  oeconomy."  To  make  the  good  father 
speak  to  his  purpose,  he  has  reduced  a  universal 
term  to  a  particular  one,  and  has  translated  a  clause 
which  was  clearly  exegetical,  and  which  would  admit 
of  no  other  sense,  as  if  it  were  exceptive.     Such  is 

*   Sep  7,ctt.  iii.  p.  47' 


82  rosiscRipr. 

this'acute  polemic's  method  of  pressing  recruits  into 
his  service  ;  whether  such  recruits  will  pass  muster, 
must  be  left  to  the  decision  of  impartial  criticism. 

I  CANNOT  avoid  expressing  extreme  surprize, 
that  the  worthy  letter-v/riter  has  not  corrected  his 
interpretation  of  that  passage  in  Chrysostom,  in 
which,  though  he  has  detected  a  misconception  ot 
Dr.  Priestley,  he  has  himself  fallen  into  a  similar 
mistake.  Had  he  paid  the  same  respect  to  my 
advice,  which  I  did  to  his,  and  consulted  his  Chry- 
sostom in  the  case,  he  must  have  discovered  his 
error :  for  it  is  too  palpable  to  be  overlooked.  In 
the  additional  note,  in  which  he  appeals  to  the  czxn- 
dour  of  his  English  reader,  in  favour  of  his  own 
interpretation  of  the  clause,  he  cannot  mean  to  be 
Serious. 

This  gentleman  complains  heavily  of  "  the  ex- 
«  tremely  illiberal  and  angry  spirit  of  his  opponent's 
"  remarks,"  which,  he  observes,  "  that  he  did  not 
"  provoke;  that  he  does  not  fear ;  and  that  he  shall 
"  not  imitate."  What  the  meaning  of  the  word 
provocation  may  be  in  this  gentleman's  vocabulary, 
I  know  not.  And  there  may  possibly  be  some  tame 
and  gentle  souls,  who  are  not  in  the  least  degree 
provoked,  or  moved,  at  being  taxed  with  solemnly 
asserting  the  precise  reverse  of  acknov.lcdged  facts, 
or  by  hearing  the  friend  whom  they  highly  revere, 
and  who  is  no  longer  able  to  defend  himself,  accused 
as  unworthy  of  credit  in  his  representations,  even 
of  the  plainest  facts  ;  especially,  if  these  charges 
are  ushered  in  with  solemn  professions  of  candour 
and  personal  regard.     I  confess  I  am  not  quite  of 


POSTSCRIPT.  83 

SO  milky  a  temperament.  I  felt  some  indignation 
at  the  unfounded  and  unprovoked  attack  upon  my 
own  character  ;  and  still  more,  at  the  illiberal  attempt 
to  blast  the  unsullied  reputation  of  my  venerable 
departed  friend ;  and  not  the  less,  because  of  the 
mask  of  candour,  under  which  the  blow  was  aimed. 
I  am  not,  however,  conscious  that  I  have  written 
under  the  influence  of  an  improper  spirit.  But  of 
this,  my  readers  must  be  better  judges  than  myself. 
And  if  in  any  instance  I  have  been  betrayed  into 
unbecoming  warmth  and  asperity  of  language ;  if  I 
have  exceeded  the  limits  of  true  liberality,  and  of 
what  my  learned  friend  Gilbert  Wakefield  used 
jocosely  to  style  due  christian  aniitiosity^  I  ask  for- 
giveness both  of  my  reverend  correspondent,  and 
of  my  readers. 

Hackney,  May  16,  1805. 


DISCOURSE 


DELIVERKD    AT   HACENKT,  APRIL   8,  ]R04. 


OCCASION  OF  THE  DEATH 


REV.  JOSEPH  PRIESTLEY, 

LLD.  F.R.S.  &c. 

PUBLISHED  AT  THE  DESIRE  OF  THE  CONGREGATION. 


BY  THOMAS  BELSHAM. 


BOSTON : 

PRINTED  BY  THOMAS  B.  "WAIT  ©-  CO, 

COURT-STREET. 

1809. 


A  SERMON. 


ACTS  XX.  24. 
But  none  of  iliese  tilings  move  me,  neitlier  count  I  my  life  dear  unto  myself, 
so  that  I  might  finish  my  course  with  joy,  and  the  ministiy  which  I  have 
received  of  the  Loi-d  Jesus,  to  testify  the  Gospel  of  the  Grace  of  God. 

Nor  was  this  an  empty  boast :  for,  if  we  read  the 
history  of  this  eminent  apostle,  from  his  first  con- 
A'ersion  to  the  christian  religion  to  his  imprisonment 
at  Rome,  as  it  is  related  by  his  friend  and  fellow- 
labourer  Luke,  we  shall  find, 

That  it  was  the  great  business  of  his  life  to  tes- 
tify, from  place  to  place,  the  glorious  gospel  of  the 
grace  of  God,  agreeably  to  the  commission  which 
he  had  received  from  Jesus  Christ  for  this  purpose  ; 

That  he  every  where  met  with  opposition  and 
persecution,  often  even  to  the  hazard  of  his  life, 
according  to  his  own  declaration  that  the  holy  spirit 
forewarned  him  that  in  every  city  bonds  and  afiiic- 
lions  awaited  him  ; 

That,  nevertheless,  nothing  discouraged  him, 
and  no  danger  deterred  him  from  performing  the 
duties  of  his  office,  and  executing  his  commission 
to  the  fullest  extent ;  and  finally. 

That  he  was  animated  to  all  his  labours,  and  sup- 
ported under  all  his  sufferings,  by  the  ardent  desire 
8 


86 


SERMON. 


and  confident  expectation  of  a  final  and  a  glorious 
triumph. 

1.  That  doctrine  which  the  apostle  taught  was 
the  "  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God."  Very  remote 
indeed  from  the  system  which  in  modern  times  has 
been  dignified  with  the  title  of  gospel-doctrine,  a 
system  which  teaches  that  all  mankind  are  doomed 
to  eternal  misery  for  Adam's  sin,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  who  are  chosen  by  mere  good  pleasure  to 
everlasting  life.  A  tremendous  doctrine  !  Avhich 
had  it  really  been  taught  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles, 
their  gospel  might  truly  have  been  denominated, 
not  the  doctrine  of  peace  and  good  will,  but  a  mes- 
sage of  wrath  and  injustice,  of  terror  and  despair. 
The  doctrine  which  Jesus  revealed,  and  which  Paul 
preached,  was  the  reverse  of  this.  It  was  glad 
tidings  of  great  and  universal  joy ;  for  it  revealed 
the  equal  and  impartial  love  of  God  to  his  whole 
human  offspring,  unrestrained  by  any  local  or  cere- 
monial distinction  ;  the  infinite  placability  of  the 
divine  character ;  the  free  and  unpurchased  mercy  of 
God  to  the  truly  penitent ;  the  momentous  doctrine 
of  a  vmiversal  resurrection  of  the  dead  ;  the  advance- 
ment of  the  I'ighteous  to  glory,  honour,  and  immor- 
tality ;  and  the  future  condemnation  of  the  wicked  to 
a  just  and  necessary,  but  not  to  a  vindictive,  much 
less  to  an  everlasting  punishment. 

This  was  the  doctrine  which  Paul  taught;  and  his 
authority  for  teaching  it  was  a  commission  which  he 
received  from  Jesus  Christ  himself,  attested  and 
sealed  by  various  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  holy 
spirit,  and  by  miraculous  powers  with  vhich  the 
apostle  was  eminently  endowed. 


SERMOX.  87 

While  "  Saul  was  yet  breathing  out  threatening- 
"  and  slaughter  against  the  disciples  of  the  Lord," 
while  he  was  upon  the  road  to  Damascus  with  au- 
thority from  the  high-priest  to  bring  those  whom  he 
should  find  there  in  chains  to  Jerusalem  ;  in  the 
middle  of  the  day,  as  he  approached  the  city,  when 
he  was  probably  enjoying  by  anticipation  the  suf- 
ferings and  groans  of  his  intended  victims,  on  a 
sudden,  the  furious  and  unrelenting  persecutor  is 
arrested  in  his  way,  and,  by  a  miracle  of  poAver  and 
mercy,  becomes  in  an  instant  the  trembling  suppliant 
of  that  Jesus  whose  name  he  had  blasphemed,  whose 
authority  he  had  defied,  whose  doctrine  he  had 
scorned,  and  whose  disciples  he  had  imprisoned, 
tormented,  and  put  to  death.  And  when,  prostrate 
on  the  ground  in  an  agony  of  terror,  he  requests  to 
know  the  pleasure  of  the  majestic  personage  who 
had  condescended  to  address  him  in  the  language 
of  pathetic  e::postulation,  the  merciful  Redeemer 
embraces  the  very  instant  of  contrition  and  remorse 
to  pronounce  forgiveness,  and  to  appoint  him  to  the 
office  of  an  apostle  and  a  teacher  of  the  gentiles. 
"  Rise,"  said  he,  "  and  stand  upon  thy  feet ;  for  I 
"  have  appeared  to  thee  for  this  purpose,  to  make 
"  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness  both  of  these  things 
"  which  thou  hast  seen,  and  those  in  which  I  will 
"  appear  unto  thee,  delivering  thee  from  the  people, 
"  and  from  the  gentiles  to  whom  I  now  send  thee,  to 
"  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness 
"  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God, 
"  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  an 
"  inheritance  among  them  that  are  sanctified  by  faith 
"  which  is  in  mc." 


88  SEIIMON. 

Nor  was  the  humbled  penitent  "  disobedient  to 
"  the  heavenly  vision."  He  arose,  and  with  very  dif- 
ferent views  from  those  with  which  he  had  entered 
upon  his  journey,  he  reached  Damascus ;  and  having 
there  been  miraculously  healed  of  the  blindness  with 
which  he  had  been  struck  by  the  dazzling  splendour 
of  the  vision,  he  speedily  retired  into  Arabia*,  where 
he  resided  a  considerable  time,  during  which  his 
understanding  was  enlightened  in  the  doctrine,  and 
his  heart  disciplined  to  the  spirit,  of  the  gospel. 
After  which  returning  to  Damascus,  without  any 
communication  with  the  other  apostles,  and  being 
fully  instructed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  by 
immediate  revelation  from  Jesus  himself,  he  opened 
his  commission  of  peace  and  truth  in  that  very  city 
to  which  he  had  been  sent  upon  a  purpose  of  malice 
and  cruelty,  and  confounded  the  Jews  who  dwelt  at 
Damascus  by  the  irresistible  evidence  with  which  he 
demonstrated,  that  Jesus,  who  had  been  crucifiedj 
was  the  true  Messiah. 

From  this  time  it  became  the  business  of  his  life 
to  go  from  place  to  place  "  testifying  the  gospel  of 
"  the  grace  of  God."  And  for  this  end  he  left  all. 
He  forsook  his  family  and  friends,  and  all  his  former 
honourable  and  powerful  connections ;  he  resigned 
his  prospects  of  literary  reputation,  and  all  his  hopes 
of  rising  to  opulence  and  power ;  he  even  did  Avhat  is 
still  more  difficult,  he  abandoned  all  his  inveterate 
prejudices  and  all  his  pharisaic  pride,  and  devoted 
himself  wholly  and  without  reserve  to  the  ministry 
of  the  gospel,  and  particularly  to  the  conversion  of 
the  heathen ;  glorymg  in  the  character  and  office  ol 
»  Gal.  i.  17,  ts. 


SERMON.  §9 

the  apostle  of  those  gentiles  Avhom  he  had  fomierly 
regarded  with  disdain.  "  I  shewed,"  saith  he,  "  iirst 
"  to  the  Jews  at  Damascus,  and  at  Jerusalem,  and 
"  throughout  all  the  coasts  of  Judea,  and  then  to  the 
"  Gentiles,  that  they  should  repent  and  turn  to  God, 
"  and  do  works  meet  for  repentance*."  And  again, 
"  I  am  debtor  both  to  the  Greeks  and  to  the  Bar- 
•'  barians,  to  the  wise  and  to  the  unwisef." 

2.  That  in  the  course  of  his  apostolic  mission 
and  labours  he  encountered  constant  and  malignant 
opposition,  and  often  to  the  hazard  of  his  Ufe,  is 
evident  to  all  who  arc  in  the  least  acquainted  with 
his  history.  He  opened  his  iTiinistry  at  Damascus : 
and  there  the  governor,  in  concert  with  the  Jews, 
endeavoured  to  seize  and  to  put  him  to  death ;  but 
with  difficulty  he  made  his  escape,  and  returned  to 
Jerusalem  ^.  Here  he  expected  the  most  signal 
success,  and  thought  it  impossible  that  the  enemies 
of  the  gospel  should  be  able  to  resist  the  arguments 
of  one  who,  having  formerly  distinguished  himself 
as  a  savage  persecutor,  was  now  become  the  zealous 
advocate  of  the  doctrine  which  he  then  blasphemed. 
But  he  soon  discovered  his  mistake,  and  in  a  few 
days  he  found  it  necessary  to  flee  for  his  life ;  and 
being  warned  in  a  vision||,  he  employed  his  suc- 
ceeding laboiu's  in  the  conversion  of  the  gentiles, 
amongst  whom,  though  his  success  was  great,  his 
persecutions  were  proportionable.  But  time  would 
fail  iiie  to  recount  all  the  sufferings  of  this  eminent 
apostle  which  are  recorded  by  his  historians,  Avho 

•  Acls  XXV  i.  20.  t  Rom.  i.  14. 

^Acts.  is.  23 — 25.    2Cor.  si.  32.  H  Acts,  xxiHr—II. 

«  * 


90 


SERMON. 


have  nevertheless  omitted  many,  and  perhaps  even 
the  greater  part  of  them.  «  I  go  to  Jerusalem," 
says  this  christian  hero,  "  not  knowing  what  shall 
"  befall  me  there,  save  that  the  holy  spirit  witnesses 
"  in  every  city,  that  bonds  and  afflictions  abide 
"  me*."  "  Thou  hast  fully  known,"  says  he  to 
Timothy,  his  pupil,  companion,  and  friend,  "  my 
"  doctrine,  manner  of  life,  purpose,  faith,  long  suf- 
"  fering,  charity,  patience,  persecutions,  afflictions 
"  which  came  upon  me  at  Antioch,  at  Iconium,  at 
"  Lystra,  what  persecutions  I  endured  :  but  out  of 
"them  all  the  Lord  delivered  met." 

The  most  malignant  opposition  which  the  apostle 
encountered  proceeded  from  those  Avho  professed, 
indeed,  to  believe  in  Christ,  but  who  corrupted  the 
simplicity  of  the  gospel  by  a  mixture  of  Jewish  fable 
and  pharisaic  tradition,  who  were  the  determined 
enemies  to  the  liberties  of  the  gentile  church,  £ind 
were  desirous  of  bowing  the  necks  of  the  heathen 
converts  to  the  yoke  of  the  ceremonial  law.  These 
men,  to  accomplish  their  sinister  purposes,  intruded 
themselves  into  the  churches  which  the  apostle  had 
planted,  and  scrupled  not  to  foment  divisions  among 
them,  and  to  alienate  the  affections  of  his  converts 
by  the  grossest  calumnies.  They  represented  him 
as  an  uninfoi'med,  unauthorised,  and  inconsistent 
teacher  of  Christianity,  who  preached  for  the  sake 
of  gain,  and  who  sacrificed  truth  to  secure  popular- 
itv|.     And  the  intemperate  zeal  of  these  rash  bigots 

»  Acts,  XX.  22.  t  2  Tim.  iii.  10,  U. 

\  This  is  t'\i(lciit  from  the  solicitmlo  wliicli  the  apostle  iliscovers  to  cxcul- 
pale  himself  from  thcsf  cliarg;is  in  hi^i  t'pistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  tlie  GaU- 
I'.aiu.    see  2  Cor.  xii.  11, 12.  16-^18. 


'  SERHfOX.  91 

was  too  much  countenanced  by  the  equivocal  and 
unmanly  conduct  of  some  of  the  other  apostles,  or, 
at  least,  by  that  of  Peter,  to  whom  Paul  was  under 
the  necessity  of  administering  a  sharp  and  public 
reproof  at  Antioch  *.  But  with  the  leaders  of  the 
opposing  factions  the  apostle  kept  no  terms  what- 
ever ;  but  upon  every  proper  occasion  he  exposed 
their  ignorance,  their  selfishness,  their  ambitious 
views,  their  vain  pretensions,  their  envy  and  malice, 
their  ungenerous  conduct,  their  daring  corruptions 
of  the  christian  doctrine,  their  rancorous  opposition 
to  the  liberty  and  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  And  in 
reply  to  their  vile  insinuations  agidnst  his  character, 
juid  their  attacks  upon  his  authority,  he  appeals  to 
the  whole  tenor  of  his  public  life,  and  particularly 
rests  his  defence  upon  the  sufferings  which  he 
endured  in  the  cause  of  truth.  '<  Are  they  minis- 
"  ters  of  Christ  ?"  says  he,  "  I  am  more.  In  labours 
"  more  abundant,  in  stripes  above  measure,  in  prisons 
"  more  frequent,  in  deaths  oft.  Of  the  Jews  five 
"  times  have  I  received  forty  stripes,  save  one. 
"  Thrice  was  I  beaten  with  rods,  once  was  I  stoned, 
"  thrice  I  suffered  shipwreck,  a  night  and  a  day  I  have 
"  been  in  the  deep.  In  journeyings  often,  in  perils  of 
"  waters,  in  perils  of  robbers,  in  peiils  by  my  own 
"  countrymen,  in  perils  by  the  heathen,  in  perils  in 

«  See  Gal.  ii.  11—17.  The  .Tpostle  ivlates  this  iiuidfnt  to  il'^riiul  lilmself 
I  ram  the  cliar^e  of  inconsistency.  See  v.  18.  The  persons  who  introduced 
dissension  into  tlie  church  at  Antiocli,  and  who  stdnced  I'cterand  Raniahas 
are  said  lo  ha\e  come  from  James,  wlio  presided  over  tlic  uhtnch  at  .Ii  rusalnm, 
and  who;e  prejndices  were  pi-obaUly  as  strongs  as  those  of  Peter.  The  ad(ir<  s» 
to  Peter  inds  at  v-  17.  The  apostle  then  resumes  his  discourse  to  tiie  (Jala- 
ti.uis,  .and  arjjiies  the  folly  of  such  incoiisistcnty  of  conduct  as  Jmd  been  iuiput- 
.'d  to  liin. 


92  StRMON. 

"  the  city,  in  perils  in  the  wilderness,  in  perils  iu 
"  the  sea,  in  perils  among  false  brethren.  In  weari- 
"  ness  and  painfulness,  in  watchings  often,  in  hunger 
"  and  thirst,  in  fastings  often,  in  cold  and  nakedness, 
"besides  those  things  that  are  without,  that  which 
"  Cometh  upon  me  daily,  the  care  of  all  the 
«  churches*." 

3.  It  is  further  observable,  that  notwithstanding 
all  these  persecutions  and  dangers,  nothing  discou- 
raged the  apostle,  nothing  deterred  him  from  per- 
formuig  the  duties  of  his  oincc,  and  executing  his 
commission  to  its  utmost  extent.  "  None  of  these 
"  things,"  says  he,  "  inove  me."  When  persecuted 
in  one  city,  he  sought  refuge  in  another :  and  no 
sooner  was  he  silenced  in  one  place,  than  he  opened 
his  commission  in  another.  Narrowly  escaping  from 
Damascus,  he  begins  to  preach  at  Jerusalem  :  driven 
from  Jerusalem,  he  carries  the  gospel  to  Cesarea, 
to  Tarsus  his  native  city,  and  to  Antioch,  where  the 
disciples  first  obtained  the  honourable  name  of  Chris- 
tians, And  such  was  his  conduct  through  tht- 
whole  of  his  life  and  ministry.  He  reminds  the 
Thessalonians,  that  "  after  having  suffered  and  been 
"shamefully  treated  at  Philippi,  he  was  bold  in  his 
«  God  to  speak  the  gospel  to  them,  though  amidst 
"  much  contentiont."  And  when  it  was  foretold  by 
Agabus,  that  "  he  should  be  bound  at  Jerusalem 
"and  delivered  up  to  the  gentiles,"  while  his  friends 
were  earnestly  dissuading  him  from  taking  the  jour- 
ney, "  What  mean  ye,"  says  he,  "  to  weep  and  to 
"  break  my  heart  ?    for  I  am  ready  not  to  be  boiuid 

»  2  Cor.  xi.  22— 2!i.  t  1  TliCis.  !i.  2, 


SERMON.  93 

*  only,  but  to  die  at  Jerusalem  for  the  name  of  the 
"  Lord  Jesus*." 

4.  Finally,  the  apostle  was  animated  to  his  la- 
bours, and  supported  under  his  sufferings,  by  the 
ardent  desire  and  confident  expectation  of  ultimate 
success,  and  of  a  final  glorious  triumph.  <■  None 
*' of  these  things  move  me,  neither  count  I  my  life 
"  dear  unto  myself,  so  that  I  may  finish  my  course 
"with  joy." 

Amidst  difficulties  and  dangers  he  possessed 
many  sources  of  consolation  even  while  he  was  fulfill- 
ing his  ministry.  The  consciousness  of  fidelity^ 
disinterestedness  and  zeal  in  the  cause  in  which  he 
was  embarked,  was  an  inexhaustible  spring  of  com- 
fort, and  a  powerful  motive  to  activity  and  persever- 
ance. "  Our  rejoicing,"  suith  he,  "  is  this,  the  testi- 
*'  mony  of  our  conscience,  that  in  simplicity  and 
"  godly  sincerity,  not  with  fleshly  wisdom  but  by 
"  the  grace  of  God,  we  have  had  our  conversation 
in  the  worldf."  The  apostle  also  felt  the  warmest 
emotions  of  gratitude  and  delight  at  the  recollection 
of  the  great  mercy  that  he  had  experienced,  and  of 
the  high  honour  which  had  been  conferred  upon  him 
in  his  conversion  to  the  christian  faith,  in  his  call  to 
the  apostolic  office,  and  in  his  mission  to  the  gen- 
tiles. "  Unto  me,"  says  he,  "  who  am  less  than  the 
"  least  of  all  saints,  is  this  grace  given,  to  preach 
'  "  among  the  gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches  of 
Christ.^."  The  extraordinary  succesa  of  his  apostol- 
ical labours  was  a  continually  increasing  source  of 
joy  and  triumph.      If  many  rejected  his  doctrine 

*      Acts,  xxi.  U— 1-1.  t  2  Cor.  i,  13.  }  KpU.  iiL  ». 


94  SERMON. 

as  folly  or  blasphemy,  many  also  received  it  "  as  the 
"  wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of  God."  He  sel- 
dom resided  in  a  pk.ce,  even  for  a  short  time,  Avith- 
out  collecting  a  considercbie  ciiristian  society.  And 
if  there  were  some  ignorant  or  maiicious  intruders 
who  corrupted  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  disturbed  the 
harmony  of  the  church,  and  calumniated  the  char- 
acter of  the  apostle  ;  there  were  also  many  who  were 
fully  sensible  of  the  value  of  the  gospel,  who  were 
zealous  for  purity  of  doctrine,  and  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  christian  liberty  ;  whose  conduct  was  an  or- 
nament to  their  profession,  who  cheerfully  and  ac- 
tively concurred  with  the  apostle  in  his  schemes  of 
usefulness,  and  who,  penetrated  with  admiration  of 
his  character  and  v/ith  gratitude  for  his  instructions, 
regarded  him  with  veneration  and  love,  "  as  a  mes- 
"  senger  of  God,  or  even  as  Christ  Jesus*."  Jesus 
had  himself  appeared  in  person  to  the  apostle,  to 
invest  him  with  the  apostolic  office,  and  to  qualify 
him  for  the  honovirable  and  successful  discharge  of 
it.  He  was  no  doubt  generally  present  with  him, 
though  invisibly,  and  we  know  that  he  occasionally 
appeared  to  him  during  the  course  of  his  ministiy  ; 
and,  surely,  it  must  have  been  an  exquisite  gratifi- 
cation to  the  apostle  to  rellect  that  he  lived  and  la- 
boured and  suffered  tmder  his  inaster^s  eye.,  to  whom 
he  might  at  any  time  have  recourse  in  a  season  of 
difficulty,  and  of  whose  protection  he  was  secure. 
"  I  can  do  all  things,"  says  he,  "  through  Christ  who 
"  strengtheneth  me  :  gladly  therefore  will  I  glory 
"  in  my  infirmity,  that  the  power  of  Christ  may 
"  rest  upon  me  :  for  when  I  am  weak,  then  am  I 

•  Gil.  iv.  14. 


SERMON.  95 

"  strong*."  Nevertheless  his  chief  solicitude  was  to 
stand  approved  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  his  highest 
consolation  >vas  a  hope  of  the  divine  favour.  "  We 
"  are  not,"  says  he,  "  as  many  who  corrupt  the  word 
<'  of  God,  but  as  of  sincerity,  but  as  of  God,  as  in  the 
"  presence  of  God  we  speak  in  Jesus  Christf."  It 
likewise  afforded  him  great  satisfaction  to  observe 
that  his  sufferings.,  as  well  as  his  labours,  tended  to 
promote  the  cause  of  truth  and  virtue.  He  is  desir- 
ous that  the  Philippians  "  should  understand  that 
''  the  things  which  had  happened  to  him  had  fallen 
*'  out  rather  to  the  furtherance  of  the  gospel,  and 
"  that  many  waxing  confident  by  his  bonds  were 
"  much  more  bold  to  speak  the  word  without  fear|." 
And  it  was  not  the  least  inaportant  source  of  conso- 
lation to  reflect,  that  the  cause  in  which  he  laboured 
and  for  which  he  suffered  was  a  living  and  a  growing 
cause  ;  and  that,  whatever  might  happen  to  himself, 
christian  truth  was,  like  its  author  immortal,  and 
must  ultimately  and  universally  prevail.  With  what 
an  air  of  triumph  does  he  assure  the  evangelist 
Timothy,  "  I  know  in  whom  I  have  believed  :  and  I 
"  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  keep  the  treasure 
"  he  has  deposited  with  me  until  that  day||." 

•  2  Cor.  xii.  Q.  10.  Tlie  I.onl  to  whom  the  apostle  prayed,  ¥.  8.  and  who 
promised  that  his  streiif^lh  slioulcl  bt-  made  porftct  in  him,  ajipears  evidently 
to  liave  been  Christ,  v.  9.  of  whose  personal  presence  with  him,  thei-efore,  at 
that  time,  the  apostle  must  have  bt'en  assurc'd  :  otherwise  he  would  not  iiave 
prayed  to  him.  But  Jesus  liad  promised  to  be  with  his  apo!.tles  to  the  end  of 
that  age,  wliieh  authorised  those  personal  addresses  to  him  which  in  succeed- 
ing ages  w  ould  not  be  waiTantahle.  Sec  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  Also  bishop  Pearce's 
Corainentaiy,  and  Mr.  Wakefield's  excellent  note  upon  the  text. 

t  2  Cor.  ii.  17.  X  Phil.  i.  12— ll. 

II  2  Tim.  i.  12.  TotpxiriKtit,  evangeliam  mihi  commissum.  Wakefield', 
innnuscript  note  upon  Wvtstein,    Conipnrc  v.  14.  wlicre  the  same  word  n 


96  SERMON. 

But  the  greatest  satisfaction  of  all  was  the 
confident  and  joyful  expectation  which  the  apostle 
entertained  of  ?,  future  e-ver lasting  recom/iense.  In 
comparison  with  this,  all  present  sufierings  Avere 
light  and  niomentaiy  in  his  estimation.  "  I  have 
"  fought,"  says  he,  "  the  good  fight.  I  have  finished 
"  my  course.  I  have  kept  the  faith.  Henceforth 
"  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness, 
«  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  will  give 
"  me  in  that  day*." 

And  yet  he  makes  comparatively  light  of  his  own 
personal  reward  if  it  were  not  to  be  shared  in  com- 
mon with  his  friends  and  converts.  The  summit  of 
his  bliss,  the  palm  of  his  ambition,  is  to  meet  them 
vith  satisfaction  at  the  tribunal  of  Christ,  and  to  be 
united  with  them  in  glory  and  happiness.  "  What," 
saith  he,  "  is  our  hope,  our  joy,  our  crown  of  re- 
"  joicing?  are  not  even  ye  in  the  presence  of  our 
"  Lord  Jesus  Christ  at  his  coming  ?  for  ye  are  our 
"  gloiy  and  our  joyf." 

Supported  by  these  consolations,  and  animated 
by  these  views  and  hopes,  what  wonder  is  it  that 
none  of  the  afflictions  and  persecutions  which  he 
endured  could  move  the  apostle  from  his  faith  and 
duty,  and  that  life  itself  was  often  exposed,  and  hi 
the  end  cheerfully  sacrificed,  "  that  so  he  might 
"  finish  his  course  with  joy,  and  that  ministry  which 

used  ill  the  best  manuscripts.  Ste  Griestoch:  Also  Mackniglit  and  Benson 
on  t'le  text.  Dr.  Harwood  paraplirastically  but  .justly  translates  tlie  passage 
"  I  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  jireserve  in  the  world  till  his  future  torn- 
'•  ing  that  sacred  deposit  with  wliich  he  has  entrusted  me." 

»    2  Tun.  iv.  7,  8.  +1  Thess.  ii.  IP,  20. 


SERMON.  ^7 

"  he  had  received  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  testify  the 
*'  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God." 

I  AM  persuaded,  my  christian  friends,  that  while 
I  have  been  thus  briefly  illustrating  the  short  sketch 
which  the  apostle  has  given  of  his  own  character, 
many  of  you  have  been  impressed  with  the  striking 
features  of  resemblance  which  it  bears  to  that  of  a 
great  and  venerable  man  whose  decease  has  just 
been  announced  to  us, — Dr.  Priestley, — a  name  emi- 
nently dear  to  science,  but  still  dearer  to  religion, 
justly  celebrated  through  the  w'oi'ld  for  talents 
and  for  learning,  and  particulai-ly  for  his  numerous 
original  and  important  discoveries  in  the  philosophy 
of  nature  and  of  man ;  but  still  more  estimable, 
more  truly  renowned,  for  his  zeal  and  industry,  his 
laljours  and  his  sufferings,  in  the  cause  of  moral 
truth  and  of  pure  unsophisticated  Christianity  :  a 
•character  dear  to  every  one  whois  capeible  of  appre- 
ciating intellectual  excellence  and  moral  worth,  but 
peculiarly  endeared  to  you,  my  friends,  by  the  rela- 
tion which  he  once  sustained  as  the  pastor  of  this 
christian  society  ;  by  the  extraordinary  ability,  assi- 
•duity  and  success  with  which  he  discharged  the 
•duties  of  his  profession,  and  by  the  dignity  of  his 
character,  and  the  amiable  simplicity  of  his  manners 
in  private  life. 

Of  the  transcendent  talents  of  this  truly  great 
man  and  enlightened  philosopher,  of  the  quickness 
of  his  apprehension,  of  the  soundness  of  his  judg- 
ment, of  the  comprehension  of  his  views,  of  tl;e 
activity  and  versatility  of  hi«  powers,  of  the  ardour 
of  liis  mind,  of  his  resolute  and  unwearied  applica- 
9 


ys 


SKUMOV. 


lion,  of  the  divevsily  and  extent  of  his  erudition,  of 
his  insatiable  tliirst  after  knowledge,  of  the  varietv 
and  ingenuity  of  his  contrivances  to  facilitate  in- 
vestigation, and  to  diversify  experiment;  of  the 
originality,  the  multiplicity,  and  the  unparalleled 
success  of  his  researches  into  the  phenomena  and 
the  laws  of  nature ;  of  the  extent  and  value  of  those 
grand  discoveries  which  constitute  a  new  a:ra  in  the 
progress  of  experimental  philosophy ;  of  the  un- 
common candour  and  unexampled  generosity  with 
which  he  communicated  those  discoveries  for  the 
benefit  of  mankind ;  and  of  the  high  estimation  in 
which  he  was  held  by  all  his  contemporaries  who 
were  capable  of  appreciating  his  merits,  and  who 
were  willing  to  do  justice  to  his  talents,  much 
might  be  said  and  justly,  and  much  will  be  spoken 
even  by  those  who  during  his  lifetime  were  most 
jealous  of  his  honours,  and  most  niggardly  in  his 
praise,  and  still  more  by  those  who  knew  and  ho- 
noured him  while  he  was  living,  and  who  now  cherish 
his  memory  with  gratitude  and  veneration. 

In  what  remains  of  this  discourse  I  shall  limit 
myself  to  the  humbler  task  of  illustrating  Dr.  Priest- 
ley's character  in  that  view  of  it  which  is  least 
attractive  to  the  world,  and  which  is  held  in  little 
estimation  by  many  who  entertain  the  highest  opi- 
nion of  his  literary  and  philosophical  talents  and 
acquisitions,  but  upon  which  he  himself,  and  in  my 
apprehension  justly;  set  the  highest  value,  namely, 
his  character  as  a  christian  minister,  and  an  en- 
lightened, able,  and  zealous  advocate  of  christian 
truth.    In  this  department  he  was  truly  exemplary, 


SERMO.V.  99 

and  his  conduct  in  many  particulars  bore  an  honour- 
able resemblance  to  that  of  the  great  apostle  of  the 
gentiles.  It  was  the  main  object  and  business  of 
his  life  "  to  testify  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God," 
and  from  this  purpose  he  was  not  to  be  diverted  by 
any  secular  consideration  whatever. 

The  foundation  of  all  the  excellencies  of  this 
great  and  good  man's  private  and  professional  charac- 
ter was  laid  in  early,  serious,  and  unaffected  piety. 
His  faith  in  the  existence  of  God  was  clear  and  un- 
hesitating, his  views  of  the  divine  character  and 
government  were  rational  and  sublime,  and  his 
practical  regards  to  the  Divine  Being  were  habitual 
and  uniform.  His  piety  was  not  obtrusive  and 
ostentatious,  but  calm  and  steady :  not  obvious  to 
the  notice  of  the  world,  but  evident  to  all  who  were 
honoured  with  his  society  and  friendship.  It  was 
the  ruling  principle  of  his  conduct,  the  balm  and 
consolation  of  his  life.  This  habit  was  of  the  ear- 
liest growth  under  the  fostering  care  of  a  pious  and 
benevolent  relative,  who  took  the  charge  of  his  edu- 
cation, and  of  whose  kindness  he  retained  an  affec- 
tionate and  grateful  sense  to  the  latest  hour  of  life. 
In  maturer  years,  as  he  acquired  more  correct  con- 
ceptions of  the  attributes  of  God,  his  piety  became 
more  confirmed,  as  a  principle  of  action,  while  it 
was  at  the  same  time  gradually  purified  from  all 
tincture  of  irrational  and  unmanly  superstition. 

Another  predominant  feature  in  Dr.  Priestley's 
official  character  was  a  disinterested  love  of  truth, 
indefatigable  zeal  in  the  pursuit  of  it,  and  resolution 
to  adhere  to  it  when  found,  at  all  hazards.     This 


100  SERMON'. 

virtuous  principle  was  generated  in  his  mind  by  the 
vigor  of  his  intellect,  and  by  an  early  intercourse 
with  wise  and  good  men  of  different  opinions  in  re- 
ligion. Having  often  heard  these  opinions  discussed 
with  temper  and  ability,  and  being  himself  pene- 
trated with  an  impressive  sense  of  the  importance 
of  christian  truth,  he  soon  began  to  regard  it  as  an 
imperious  duty  to  take  nothing  upon  trust,  but  to 
think  and  judge  for  himself  concerning  the  doctrines 
of  cjiristianity,  according  to  the  ability  and  oppor- 
tunity which  divine  pro\idence  had  granted  him. 

He  was  educated  in  the  rigorous  and  gloomy 
system  of  Calvin,  and  he  felt  it  in  all  its  horrors*. 
13ut  as  his  mind  gradually  expanded,  he  by  degrees 
acquired  courage  to  examine  the  prejudices  of  his 
education,  and  to  divest  himself  of  some  principles 
which  were  most  glaringly  absurd  and  obnoxious, 
even  before  he  commenced  a  regular  course  of  theo- 
logical studies.  He  was,  when  very  young,  ex- 
cluded from  communion  with  a  church  in  which  he 
hud  been  accustomed  to  worship,  because  he  hesi- 
tated to  acknowledge  himself  deserving  of  eternal 
misery  for  Adam's  sin  f-     And  desirous  as  he  was 

»  Upon  tliis  subject  he  thus  expresses  hiraself :  "  Bt- lieviiig  that  a  new 
••  liirth,  produceil  by  the  iiunietliiite  ajjency  of  tlie  spirit  of  God, «  as  necessary 
■'  lo  salvation,  ami  not  Ixing  able  lo  satisfy  myself  that  I  had  experienced  any 
"thing  of  the  kind,  1  had  occasionally  such  distress  t)fiuiiul  as  it  is  not  in  my 
'■  power  to  descril«>;  and  which  I  still  look  back  upon  with  horror.  Notwith- 
'•standing  1  had  nothing  very  material  to  ivproacli  mysilf  with,  I  often  con- 
•■  eluded  that  Goil  had  liirsakeu  me,  and  that  my  case  was  that  of  Francis 
"Spira,  to  whom,  as  he  imagiiud.  repiiitance  and  sal\ation  were  denietl.  lu 
'•this  state  of  m. lid  I  rcniemlxT  reading  the  account  of  the  man  in  the  iron 
'•  cage  in  the  Pilgrin/s  Progress  with  thi  gi-eatest  pertm-balion."' 

t  "  Not  thinking,"  says  he,  "  that  all  the  human  race,  supposing  them  not 
■'  to  have  any  sin  of  their  own,  wen-  liable  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  the 
•  painsof  hell  for  erer,  for  that  sin  only.  Kor  such  was  the  question  that  was 
••put  to  me." 


SERMOK. 


lOl 


to  be  educated  for  the  christian  ministry,  he  pe- 
remptorily refused  to  enter  himself  as  a  pupil  in  an 
institution  where  subscription  to  articles  of  faith  was 
an  indispensable  condition  of  admission.  He  I'e- 
solved  even  at  that  early  age  that  he  would  endure 
no  fetters  upon  freedom  of  inquiry. 

The  chi'istian  ministry,  as  exercised  among  pro- 
testant  dissenters,  was  the  profession  of  his  early 
and  favourite  choice  ;  and  though  for  a  time  the 
delicate  and  precarious  state  of  his  health  seemed 
likely  to  prove  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  the  attain- 
ment of  his  wishes,  a  favourable  change  in  the  state 
of  his  constitution  at  length  permitted  him  to  enter 
as  a  student  in  a  respectable  institution  for  the  edu- 
cation of  ministers,  at  Daventry  in  Northampton- 
shire. Dr.  Priestley  has  often  been  heard  to  ac- 
knowledge, with  great  satisfaction,  that,  at  the  period 
when  he  became  a  member  of  that  college,  it  hap- 
pened to  be  in  a  state  peculiarly  favourable  for  the 
investigation  of  truth.  Theological  discussion  was 
conducted  with  candour  and  without  any  restraint, 
the  tutors  and  students  being  almost  equally  divided 
in  opinion  upon  the  most  important  subjects.  In 
such  a  situation  his  love  of  truth  and  his  thirst  after 
knowledge  increased  daily  :  and  before  he  had 
fmishcd  his  academical  course  he  had  divested  him- 
self of  many  early  prejudices,  though  he  was  far 
from  having  acquired  those  clear,  distinct,  and  com- 
prehensive views  of  christian  doctrine  which  he, 
afterwards  attained.  It  was  at  this  period  of  his 
life  that  he  first  became  acquainted  with  Hartley's 
Observations  on  Man,  an  admirable  work,  whicii 
9  * 


102  SERMON. 

attracted,  as  indeed  it  merited,  his  closest  attention, 
which  gave  him  an  insight  into  the  true  theoiy  of 
human  nature,  a  subject  in  the  discussion  of  which 
he  afterwards  so  greatly  excelled.  Hartley  was  his 
favourite  author  to  the  close  of  life:  and  he  freely 
owned  that  he  had  derived  more  instruction  and 
more  satisfaction  from  this  volume,  than  from  any 
other  book  which  he  had  ever  read,  the  scriptures 
alone  excepted. 

As  a  public  speaker  Dr.  Priestley  was  conscious 
that  he  did  not  possess  popular  talents  ;  and  early 
in  life  he  was  afflicted  with  an  impediment  in  his 
speech,  which  he  with  great  difficulty  subdued.  This 
led  him  when  he  first  settled  in  the  world  to  acqui- 
esce in  situations  which  were  very  private  and  ob- 
scure. But  wherever  he  lived,  his  chief  employ- 
ment was  to  study  the  scriptures,  and  to  investigate 
their  true  sense,  Avhether  it  did  or  did  not  accord  with 
his  own  preconceived  opinions.  His, sole  object 
was  truth  :  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  the  pure  un- 
corrupted  doctrine  of  the  christian  revelation  ;  for 
the  attuhiment  of  which  he  thought  no  labour  too 
great,  and  no  sacrifice  too  dear. 

The  principles  of  his  education  were  so  deeply 
rooted  in  Dr.  Priestley's  mind,  that  it  was  by  a  very 
slow  process,  and  in  consequence  of  very  laboiious 
and  persevering  inquiry  for  many  years,  that  he  at 
length  disentangled  his  mind  from  the  web  of  pre- 
judice, and  purified  his  views  of  the  christian  sys- 
tem from  those  errors  which  early  prepossessions 
liad  blended  in  his  mind  with  the  genuine  doctrine 
o.f  Christ.     In  the  course  of  his  preparatory  studies 


« 


SERMON.  lOS 

he  saw  sufficient  reason  to  abandon  the  unscriptural 
docU'ines  of  the  trinity,  of  original  sin,  and  of  vica- 
rious suffering.  He  still,  however,  adhered  to  the 
Arian  notion  concerning  the  pei'son  and  offices 
of  Christ,  to  a  qualified  sense  of  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  and  to  other  points  connected  with  them. 
Upon  further  consideration  he  soon  saw  reason  to 
give  up  the  doctrine  of  atonement  in  every  sense  of 
it,  and  to  hesitate  concerning  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  sacred  writers.  But  it  was  not  till  upwai'ds 
of  ten  years  afterwards,  and  when  he  was  settled 
with  a  respectable  congregation  at  Leeds,  that,  in 
consequence  of  reading  with  great  attention  Dr. 
Lardner's  incomparable  letter  upon  the  Logos,  he 
became  a  proper  unitarian,  and  a  firm  believer  in  the 
simple  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  which  doctrine 
he  contmued  ever  afterwards  a  most  able  and  stren- 
uous advocate.  It  was  still  later  than  this  that  Dr. 
Priestley  adopted  and  avowed  his  original  and  in- 
genious hypothesis  concerning  the  homogeneity  of 
man,  which,  though  a  notion  most  innocent  in 
itself,  and  supported  by  all  the  appearances  of  na- 
ture, has,  in  consequence  of  misapprehension  or 
misrepresentation,  given  more  offence  than  any 
other  opinion  which  he  was  known  to   nraintain*. 

»  This  doctrine,  to  which  Dr.  Priestley  has  unfortuiiatt  ly  giwn  the  obnox» 
ioiis  name  of  Materialism,  thoiigliit  iiii);lit  perhaps  with  gi-eater  prnpncty  be 
called  Immaterialism,  has  by  some  been  grossly  niisimderslood,  and  bj  othen 
wiltully  misrepresented.  It  is  commonly  l)elieved  that  Dr.  Pritsiley,  as  a  ma- 
terialist, held  that  the  soul  of  niau  is  an  extended,  solid,  and  inert  substance :  a 
notion  which  he  expressly  disclaims.  He  even  denies  the  existtnce  of  solidity 
and  inertia  in  any  subsUnce,  and  adopts  the  curioirs  liypothesis  first  propos- 
ed by  P.  Boscovicli,  that  all  that  we  know  of  matter  itself  is  active  power,  and 
slut  the  only  properties  which  can  be  prOTcd  to  belojig  to  matter  are  attratr 


104  SERMON. 

liis  courage  and  integrity  in  avowing  what  he 
believed  to  be  important  truth,  was  a  most  conspicu- 
ous and  honourable  feature  in  Dr.  Priestley's  cha- 
racter. Before  he  appeared  as  the  fearless  advocate 
of  truth,  it  was  regarded  by  many  of  his  brethren 
in  the  ministry  as  the  part,  not  only  of  innocence, 
but  of  wisdom,  to  disguise  their  real  sentiments  in 
ambiguous  language,  and  to  impose  upon  their 
hearers  by  using  terms  and  phrases  in  a  sense  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  which  they  were  commonly  un- 
derstood :  thus  securing  a  reputation  for  the  ortho- 
doxy which  in  their  hearts  they  despised.  This  low 
and  secular  wisdom,  this  '•  deceitful  handling  of  the 
"word  of  God,"  the  magnanimous  spirit  of  Dr.  Priest- 
ley held  in  just  contempt ;  and  discountenanced  to 
the  utmost,  both  by  precept  and  example.  Being 
fully  convinced,  after  mature  deliberation,  that  truth 

tions  and  repulsions  of  various  kinds.  Perception  in  its  sevei-al  modes  consti- 
tutes mind  That  matter,  i.  e.  that  attraction  and  repulsion  combined,  may 
exist  witliout  p/rceptioi),  many  pli^nom.  na  lend  us  to  conclude,  and  it  is  a 
fact  generally  allowed  ;  but  that  perci-plion  and  its  modes  ever  exist,  or  can 
exist,  in  created  being-s,  unconnected  with  matter,  i.  e.  with  certain  systems 
of  attinction  and  repulsion,  is  contrary  to  all  the  known  pliienomeiia  of  na- 
ture, and  therefore  is  not  to  be  admitted  into  trui-  philosophy.  The  only  re- 
mainini;  question  is.  whether  the  vinculiMu  which  cotinects  attraction  and  re- 
pulsion is  tile  same  with  that  which  connects  these  properties  wiihperception; 
and  lo  this  no  specific  answer  can  !k-  s;i>vn,  Ixn-iiuse  it  is  a  subject  of  which 
we  are  necessaVily  and  tot  dl\  ifrnorant.  This  hypothesis  of  Dr.  Pr-estley  I 
have  ventured  to  call  the  doctrne  of  the  ftoiiioi^enfiti/  of  man;  which  woixl 
seems  properly  to  express  the  idea  that  man  doi  s  not  cot^iit,  as  is  ginenlly 
imaf^iied,  of  two  distinct  suhstances  ha\in!j  no  conmion  property;  ai.d  on 
the  other  hand  it  precludes  tlie  miuakes  and  misrepivseiitaliocs  which  arise 
from  the  use  of  the  word  matt  riatism.  It  is  i.'!.;in  th.i'.  tiiis  is  not  the  hypo- 
thesis which  Colli  IS  siipporti-d, and  which  Dr. Clarke  ofspos^d  :  and  Dr.  Price 
himself,  in  his  coiiWoM-ny  with  Dr.  Prieslhy,  verj-  nearly  jields  the  point  to 
his  able  and  acute  opponent.  See  the  Comspondeiice  lietween  Price  and 
Priestley,  p.  85,  86.  23fi.  Priestley  on  Matter  and  Spirit,  p.  17.  This  subject 
is  stated  more  at  large  in  the  Elements  of  the  Philoscpliy  of  the  Human  ^Ilnd , 
chap.  xi. 


3EHH0U.  '  tOS 

must  ultimately  be  favourable  to  virtue,  and  that  it 
can  only  make  its  way  by  honest  profession  and  fair 
argument,  he  regarded  it  as  an  indispensable  duty 
upon  every  just  occasion  to  avow,  and  in  a  manly 
and  honourable  manner  to  defend,  what  he  sincerely 
believed,  after  fair  and  diligent  inquiry,  to  be  the 
christian  truth.  He  concealed  no  doctrine  which 
he  apprehended  to  be  true  and  important,  because 
it  was  unpopular,  or  because  the  profession  of  it 
might  be  attended  with  consequences  personally 
disadvantageous  :  a  conduct  which  in  his  situation  was 
a  proof  of  uncommon  vigour  of  mind  and  strength 
of  principle.  Persons  of  popular  talents,  or  in  inde- 
pendent circumstances,  m-ay  without  much  incon- 
venience avow  opinions  obnoxious  to  vulgar  preju- 
dices, or,  repugnimt  to  the  popular  creed.  But 
where  the  public  teacher  depends  for  his  bread  upon 
the  numbers  and  the  liberality  of  his  hearers^  and 
where  he  is  conscious  of  the  want  of  talents  to  at- 
tract the  crowd,  the  profession  of  principles  which 
are  sure  to  give  offence  to  many  who  would  other- 
wise be  his  zealous  friends  and  supporters,  is  a  duty 
of  uncommon  difficulty,  and  few  have  fortitude  equal 
to  the  trial.  Such  was  the  situation  of  Dr.  Priest- 
ley when  he  first  entered  upon  the  office  of  the 
ministry  amongst  protestant  dissenters.  But  innate 
strength  of  mind,  confidence  in  the  power  of  truth, 
and  a  commanding  sense  of  duty,  triumphed  over  all. 
And  the  doctrines  which  he  embraced  from  con- 
viction, and  avo.wcd  from  principle,  he  was  well 
prepared  to  defend  with  ability  and  learning,  with 
zeal  and  charity.     In  all  the  most  important  con- 


106  SERMON. 

troversies  in  which  he  was  engaged,  he  had  studied 
the  subject  thorouglily,  and  was  a  complete  master 
of  the  whole  question.  In  reasoning,  his  language 
was  plidn  and  simple  ;  his  state  of  the  question  was 
impartial ;  his  arrangement  was  lucid ;  his  ideas  clear 
and  distinct ;  his  arguments,  though  often  original 
and  curious,  and  sometimes  refined,  and  derived 
from  the  most  grand  and  comprehensive  views  of 
things,  were  nevertherless  in  general  perspicuous 
and  forcible,  and  bearing  directly  upon  the  point  in 
question.  There  was  nothing  artificial  and  ambi- 
guous ;  no  design  to  slur  over  difficulties  and  ob- 
jections, or  to  lay  greater  stress  upon  a  topic  than  it 
Avould  well  bear.  All  was  candid,  fair,  and  gene- 
rous ;  and  where  his  arguments  failed  to  convince, 
they  nevertheless  left  a  strong  impression  of  in- 
genuousness, of  talent,  and  integrity. 

In  the  present  state  of  things  religious  controversy 
is  unavoidable,  being  indispensably  requisite  to  the 
discovery  of  christian  truth,  and  to  disentangle  it 
from  prevailing  error ;  but  it  has  a  great  tendency 
to  generate  malignant  passions  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  enter  deeply  into  it.  Nevertheless,  of  writers 
who  have  distinguished  themselves  so  much  in  con- 
troversy as  Dr.  Priestley,  few  have  preserved  their 
temper  better.  He  desired  nothing  so  earnestly  as 
calm  and  temperate  discussion  of  important  ques- 
tions ;  and  those  controversies  which  afforded  him 
the  most  satisfaction,  were  the  few  which  were 
conducted  on  both  sides  with  good  temper  and  good 
manners.  He  seldom  adopted  harsh  and  sarcastic 
language  till  his  feelings  had  been  irritated  by  un- 


SERMOK.  107 

provoked  accj^ression.  I  do  not,  however,  mean  to 
contend  that  his  language  was  always  guarded  and 
perfectly  correct.  It  sometimes,  perhaps,  expressed 
a  greater  degree  of  animosity  than  he  intended,  or 
felt ;  and  sometimes  he  used  expressions  which  he 
would  wish  to  have  recalled.  But  who  is  wise  at 
all  times  ?  He  has  often  been  charged  with  making 
use  of  harsh  language  concerning  the  opinions  of 
his  opponents.  But  this  was  done  not  with  a  design 
to  give  offence,  but  to  rouse  attention ;  and  he  re- 
garded himself  as  justified  in  it  by  the  strong  testi- 
mony which  the  primitive  teachers  of  Christianity 
bore  against  the  superstitions  and  errors  of  the 
times  in  which  they  lived.  Yet,  while  he  entered 
his  grave  and  solemn  protest  against  the  popular 
corruptions  of  the  christian  doctrine,  he  was  always 
tender  to  the  persons  of  those  who  conscientiously 
adhered  to  them.  He  viewed  Calvinism  as  the 
extravagance  of  error,  as  a  mischievous  compound 
of  impiety  and  idolatry  :  but  he  regarded  the  sincere 
professors  of  this  pernicious  system  with  compas- 
sion rather  than  contempt.  With  regard  to  many 
of  them,  he  knew  their  integrity  ;  he  revered  their 
piety  ;  in  that  denomination  of  christians  it  had  been 
his  happiness  to  meet  with  some  of  the  wisest  and 
the  best  characters  that  he  had  ever  known ;  and  to 
an  early  education  in  that  rigid  sect  he  had  been 
Indebted  for  some  of  his  best  principles,  and  his 
most  valuable  and  permanent  durable  religious  im- 
pressions. 

In  the  discharge  of  his  professsional  duties  Dr. 
Priestley  was  eminently  assiduous  and  exemplary. 


108  SEKTkfON. 

His  delight  was  to  communicate  instruction,  and, 
above  all,  religious  instruction.  "  He  led  the  lambs 
of  the  flock,"  and  condescended  to  the  capacities  of 
little  children.  His  admirable  Institutes  of  Natural 
and  Revealed  Religion  he  composed  while  a  student 
at  the  academy,  and  used  it  as  a  text^book  for  the 
instruction  of  youth  in  the  great  principles  of  moral 
and  religious  truth,  in  every  congregation  with 
which  he  was  connected  ;  and  the  pains  which  he 
took  for  this  purpose  are,  I  doubt  not,  recollected 
with  gratitude  by  many  who  now  hear  me. 

His  public  discourses  were,  generally  speaking, 
plain,  simple,  instructive  and  practical.  Occasion- 
ally they  contained  elaborate  vindications  of  natural 
and  revealed  religion ;  and  sometimes  they  were 
replete  with  beautiful  and  interesting  sentiments 
derived  from  the  principles  of  a  sublime  philosophy. 

Exposition  of  the  scriptiu'es,  or  rather  annota- 
tions upon  them  to  illustrate  and  explain  them, 
regularly  constituted  a  part  of  his  public  services ; 
and  in  this  method  he  communicated  much  informa- 
tion in  an  easy,  iiiteUigible,  and  entertaining  man- 
ner. Upon  this  subject  he  took  great  pains,  and  he 
regarded  it  as  a  very  useful  part  of  public  instruction. 
There  was  nothing  he  more  desired  than  to  excite 
the  attention  of  his  hearers  to  the  holy  scriptures, 
and  to  induce  them  to  read  this  inestimable  volume, 
not  with  superstitious  awe,  but  with  the  spirit  of 
liberal  and  judicious  criticism ;  not  in  a  careless 
formal  routine,  but  with  a  solicitous  concern  to 
understand  its  important  contents.  Divine  Provi- 
dence spared  his  life  till  he  had  completed  his  re- 


SERMON'.  109 

marks  upon  all  the  books  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  Of  these  a  considerable  part  are  already 
printed ;  and  his  latest  care  was  to  give  directions  for 
the  proper  method  of  proceeding  with  the  remain- 
der of  the  work  after  his  decease. 

But  the  labours  of  this  truly  great  and  excellent 
man  were  by  no  means  confined  to  the  pulpit.  He 
published,  as  is  well  known,  many  important  theo- 
logical treatises  both  controversial  and  practical.  Of 
these,  some  were  able  vindications  of  natural  and 
revealed  religion,  from  the  attacks  of  unbelievers 
of  all  descriptions  ;  others  were  didactic  works,  in 
which  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  true  religion 
were  stated  and  established.  Some  were  exposi- 
tions of  the  scripture,  accompanied  Avith  valuable 
critical  remarks,  partly  for  the  use  of  the  learned 
and  partly  of  the  unlearned  reader.  Some  were 
works  of  controversy,  in  which  he  earnestly  con- 
tended for  the  purity  of  the  christian  faith,  and  raised 
his  banner  against  the  corruptions  of  the  .evangelical 
doctrine.  In  one  celebrated  work  he  gave  a  detailed 
history  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  principal 
corruptions  of  the  christian  religion,  and  with  fidelity 
and  succinctness  traced  out  the  growth  of  the  grand 
apostacy,  from  the  first  deviation  from  the  simplicity 
of  the  apostolic  creed,  till  it  pervaded  the  whole 
professing  church,  suppressing  and  almost  extin- 
guishing the  vital  principles  of  Christianity.  In 
another  most  valuable  work,  he  represented  at  large, 
with  great  compass  of  thought,  acuteness  of  dis- 
crimination, and  extent  of  learning,  the  rise  and 
progress  of  those  enormous  errors  which  have 
■10 


110  SERMON. 

prevailed  from  age  to  age  concerning  the  person  of 
Christ,  who  from  the  condition  of  "  a  man  approved 
"  of  God  by  signs  and  miracles,  and  gifts  of  the  holy 
"  spirit,"  which  is  the  character  under  which  he  is 
represented  by  himself  and  his  apostles,  has  been 
advanced  by  the  officious  zeal  of  his  mistaken  fol- 
lowers, first  to  the  state  of  an  angelic  or  superangelic 
being,  a  delegated  maker  and  governor  of  the  world 
and  its  inhabitants,  and  in  the  end  to  a  complete 
equality  with  God  himself. 

Another  great  work,  in  the  compilation  of  which 
he  took  unv/earied  pains,  is  a  History  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  from  its  commencement  to  the  close  of 
the  last  century  ;  a  work  distinguished  for  the  per- 
spicuity, candour,  and  impartiality  of  the  narration, 
and  still  more  for  the  wisdom,  the  originality,  and 
the  importance  of  tlie  remarks  with  which  it  abounds  ; 
which  tend  to  reconcile  the  mind  to  the  conduct  of 
Divine  Providence  in  the  permission  of  the  great 
apostacy ;  which,  from  the  veiy  existence  of  the  cor- 
ruptions of  christian  doctrine,  deduce  an  irrefragable 
argument  in  favour  of  the  divine  origin  and  au- 
thority of  the  christian  religion ;  and  which,  from 
the  slow  but  irresistible  progi'ess  of  truth,  infer  the 
approach  of  a  glorious  period,  when  the  empire  of 
genuine  Christianity  and  undefiled  religion  shall 
triumph  over  all  opposition,  and  shall  become  uni- 
versal and  perpetual. 

Dr.  Priestley,  even  in  his  controversial  writ- 
ings, discovers  upon  all  occasions  a  deep  sense  of 
piety,  and  a  supreme  desire  to  render  every  thing  he 
wrote  subservient  to  the  practice  of  virtue.     And 


SERMON.  Ill 

in  the  practical  treatises  which  he  has  occasionally 
published,  which  are  not  indeed  numerous,  he  has 
shown  how  well  qualified  he  was  to  improve  the 
heart  as  well  as  to  enlighten  the  understanding.  His 
"  Considerations  for  the  use  of  young  men  and  the 
"  parents  of  young  men"  discover  a  thorough  know- 
ledge of  the  human  mind,  as  well  as  a  most  affec- 
tionate regard  for  the  honour  and  virtue  of  the  rising 
generation  :  and  in  a  volume  of  practical  discourses 
he  illustrates  the  e^il  and  danger  of  vicious  habits, 
the  duty  of  not  living  to  ourselves,  the  importance 
of  virtuous  superiority  to  secular  considerations,  the 
nature  and  excellence  of  habitual  devotion,  and  other 
similar  topics,  in  a  manner  equally  original  and 
impressive,  and  which  clearly  evinces  how  beauti- 
fully and  hoAV  forcibly  the  views  suggested  by  true 
philosophy  combine  with  the  principles  of  rational 
and  pure  Christianity  to  form  the  chai'acter  to  dignity 
and  virtue. 

But  to  give  an  analysis,  ur  even  a  brief  character, 
of  all  Dr.  Priestley's  theological  writings,  would  far 
exceed  the  limits  of  a  sint^le  aiscourse :  suffice  it  to 
say,  that  they  all  discover  an  active,  an  ardent,  and  a 
truly  enlightened  mind,  a  supreme  regard  to  truth, 
an  eager  thirst  after  religious  knowledge,  and  a  de- 
sire equally  predominant  to  communicate  instruction 
and  to  diffuse  christian  truth,  as  the  best  means  of 
promoting  christian  virtue.  Nor  is  it  the  least  con- 
spicuous of  his  merits,  that,  in  order  to  accomplish 
this  most  important  end,  he  was  willing  to  sacrifice 
that  upon  which  many  set  the  highest  value,  and  to 
the  importance  of  which  he  was  by  no  means  in- 


1  ^2  SERMON. 

sensible,  literary  reputation.  He  often  observed  that 
he  wrote  too  much  for  literaiy  fame  :  but  his  object 
was  to  be  useful,  and  to  promote  the  cause  of  truth 
and  virtue.  If  this  end  might  be  obtained,  selfish 
considerations  were  in  his  estimation  of  little  weight. 

Upon  this  ground  he  regarded  the  office  of  a 
christian  minister  amongst  the  protestant  dissenters 
as  a  situation  of  great  dignity  and  importance ;  not 
merely  as  a  liberal,  and  still  less  as  a  lucrative  pro- 
fession, but  solely  as  affording  the  best  opportunity 
of  devoting  his  time  to  the  investigation  of  christiiui 
truth,  and  to  the  religious  instruction  of  mankind, 
unfettered  by  subscriptions,  liturgies,  and  creeds, 
and  unbiassed  by  human  authority  in  articles  of  faith. 
In  this  view,  it  may  be  truly  said  of  him  that  "  he 
"  magnified  his  office,"  esteeming  it  a  most  honour- 
able and  useful  employment.  And  though  endowed 
with  talents  to  excel  in  philosophical  and  literary 
pursuits ;  though  strongly  attached  to  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  phsenomena  and  the  laws  of  iiature ; 
though  his  numerous,  original,  and  most  important 
discoveries  had  actually  raised  him  to  the  first  rank 
of  scientific  and  philosophical  renown  ;  he  esteemed 
all  hi^  literary  honours  as  of  no  account  in  compari- 
son with  the  acquisition  and  promulgation  of  chris- 
tian truth ;  and  was  no  further  solicitous  to  acquire 
philosophical  disitinction,  than  as  it  might  be  the 
means  of  attracting  greater  attention  to  his  theolo- 
gical writings,  and  thus  of  rcndermg  them  more 
extensively  useful. 

That  in  the  course  of  these  honourable  pursuits 
he  sijstaincd  much  violent  opposition  is  sufficiently 


SKRMOV.  113 

notorious.  Having  been,  from  his  first  setting  out 
in  life,  the  undaunted  champion  of  christian  trutJi, 
as  far  as  he  apprehended  it,  when  he  first  became  a 
public  teacher  he  encountered  many  difficulties  and 
discouragements.  He  was  neglected  by  the  friends 
of  his  youth  who  had  assisted  in  his  education  for 
the  ministry,  and  whose  expectations  he  had  dis- 
appointed :  he  was  vehemently  opposed  by  bigots, 
and  strongly  censured  by  those  who  preferred  dis- 
simulation and  quiet,  to  integrity  and  persecution. 
His  ministry  was  deserted ;  his  company  was  shun- 
ned; he  was  even  sometimes  treated  v^ith  rudeness 
and  disrespect ;  his  attempts  to  acquire  a  decent 
competence  by  literary  industry  were  opposed  and 
thwarted:  and  notwithstanding  the  utmost  prudence 
and  (Economy,  he  would  have  been  involved  in  the 
inconveniences  of  extreme  indigence,  if  his  great 
merits  had  not  been  discovered  and  patronized  by  a 
few  pei'sons  of  discernment  and  generosity  in  the 
metropolis.  Amongst  his  earliest  friends  he  often 
mentioned  the  respectable  names  of  Dr.  Lardncr, 
Dr.  Benson,  and  Dr.  Kippis,  who  applauded  and 
encourag'ed  his  theological  inquiries,  and  whose 
kindness  to  him,  when  he  most  needed  a  friend,  he 
recorded  with  aflcctionate  gratitude.  And  when,  by 
the  acknowledged  superiority  of  his  talents,  he  had 
forced  himself  into  public  notice,  and  was  raised 
to  a  situation  of  honourable  independence,  he  still 
encountered  the  most  bitter  and  malignant  opposi- 
tion from  the  advocates  of  popular  creeds  and  of 
established  errors,  who  not  only  endeavoured  to 
confute  his  arguments,  to  which,  if  it  were  in  theh- 
10  * 


1 14  SERMOK. 

power,  they  had  an  undoubted  right,  but  with  un- 
paralleled baseness,  and  unblushing  falsehood,  they 
traduced  his  character ;  they  depreciated  his  talents, 
and  defamed  his  motives ;  they  represented  him  as 
an  atheist  and  an  infidel ;  as  an  enemy  to  God ;  as  a 
traitor  to  his  sovereign  ;  as  a  foul  conspirator  against 
the  constitution  of  his  country,  and  unworthy  to. 
enjoy  the  protection  of  its  laws. 

The  sad  castastrophe  which  was  the  natural  result 
of  these  atrocious  calumnies  is  too  recent  and  too 
painful  to  be  insisted  upon  at  large.  In  characters 
of  indelible  infamy  are  recorded  those  disgraceful 
tumults,  by  which  one  of  the  most  celebrated  of 
philosophers,  of  the  most  learned  and  exemplary  of 
divines,  and  of  the  most  mild  and  benevolent  of  men, 
was  driven  by  violence,  and  in  hazard  of  his  life, 
from  his  peaceful  home,  from  the  scene  of  his  ex- 
ertions and  his  enjoyments,  and  from  a  station  of 
great  reputation  and  usefulness  :  and,  ultimately, 
after  having  obtained  an  honourable  but  short  asylum 
in  this  place,  was  com/ielled,  at  least  in  his  own  es- 
timation, to  seek  protection  on  a  foreign  shore,  and 
to  retire  as  an  exile  to  the  remotest  limit  of  the  civi- 
lized world.  Not  indeed  to  sink  into  oblivion  and 
inactivity — that  was  impossible.  For,  though  perse- 
cuted with  uncommon  rancour  by  the  emissaries  of 
bigotry  and  malice,  even  into  his  silent  and  remote 
retreat,  he  lived  by  the  favour  of  divine  providence 
to  rise  superior  to  them  all.  He  there  found  a  peace- 
ful and  a  convenient  home.  He  lived  happy  and  re- 
spected in  the  bosom  of  his  family.  He  possessed 
the  means  of  prosecuting  philosophical  inquiry  and 


SERMON.  115 

theological  research  to  a  degree  beyond  what  he 
had  ever  before  enjoyed.  He  was  successful  beyond 
his  utmost  expectation  in  promoting  the  cause  of 
christian  truth,  and  was  Uberally  supplied  with  the 
means  of  composing  and  publishing  works  which 
he  justly  apprehended  to  be  of  the  greatest  utility 
to  mankind.  He  lived  in  habits  of  friendship,  es- 
teem, and  correspondence  with  persons  of  eminence 
and  respectability,  of  talent  and  character,  of  all 
denominations  in  religion  and  politics.  And  from 
being  unjustly,  and  through  malignant  wilful  mis- 
representation, regarded  and  treated  as  an  enemy 
to  the  country  where  he  had  sought  an  asylum,  and 
in  danger  of  being  banished  from  it,  he  lived  to 
enjoy  the  esteem  and  friendship  of  the  first  ma- 
gistrate of  the  American  republic,  who  invited  his 
society,  honoured  him  with  his  correspondence,  so- 
licited his  advice,  and  patronised  his  pursuits.  And 
that  he  was  not  forgotten  by  the  friends  of  truth, 
liberty,  science,  and  religion,  in  his  native  country, 
the  late  munificent  exertions  for  his  benefit  bear 
ample  testimony*. 

His  days  were  shortened  by  his  indefatigable 
application  to  various  important  works,  which  he 
was  desirous  of  completing  to  serve  the  cause  of 

*  A  niiiiour  liaviiii;  been  circulated  tli.it  Dr.  Priestley  liad  sustained  some 
losses  in  his  pcciiniiiry  concerns,  a  proposal  was  siip^gested  to  supply  (he 
Jeticiency :  and  in  a  very  few  weeks  an  annuity  was  raised  for  him  amount- 
ing to  four  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  a  year.  Unfortunately  lie  did  not  live 
to  reap  the  iK'nefit  of  this  exertion,  or  even  to  hear  that  such  an  affair  was  in 
agitation,  'rhis  testimony  of  afiection  and  respect  would  have  diffused  a  ray  of 
consolation  over  the  evening  of  his  days.  The  niaj<nity  of  the  subscribers 
have,  however,  as  a  mark  of  veneration  for  Dr.  Priestli  y's  memory,  and  to 
assist  ill  the  publication  of  his  posthumous  works,  agreed  to  remit  td  hi»  vm 
ill  America  the  subscription  of  the  fint  year. 


116 


SEUMOX. 


rational  Christianity,  and  particularly  to  fulfil  his 
engagements  to  those  kind  friends  whose  liberality 
had  enabled  him  to  commit  to  tlie  press  two  consi- 
derable works,  upon  the  publication  of  which  his 
heart  was  earnestly  set,  as  his  last  and  most  valuable 
legacy  to  the  christian  world. 

His  health  had  been  for  some  months  in  a  declin- 
ing state  ;  but  in  the  beginning  of  last  November 
his  disorder  assumed  a  very  serious  aspect,  and  the 
accounts  which  he  then  wrote  of  his  own  case  ex- 
cited iahis  friends  the  most  alarmmg  apprehensions. 
These  apprehensions  in  some  degree  subsided,  in 
consequence  of  later  and  more  favourable  intelli- 
gence, which  excited  a  pleasing  expectation  that  the 
return  of  spring  might  in  some  degree  recruit  his 
exhausted  powers.  But  these  flattering  prospects 
suddenly  vanished  by  the  arrival  of  the  painful  in- 
telligence, that  this  great  and  venerable  man  was  no- 
more. 

Dr.  Priestley  had  long  foreseen  that  his  end' 
was  approaching ;  and  he  looked  forward  to  the 
hour  of  dissolution  with  the  fortitude  of  a  philoso- 
pher, and  the  cheerful  hope  of  a  christian.  The 
prospect  only  animated  him  to  increasing  diligence  ; 
and  he  was  desirous  of  life,  only  that  he  might  com- 
plete some  schemes  of  usefulness  which  he  had  be- 
gun. The  vigour  and  activity  of  his  mind  continued 
with  him  to  the  last,  under  the  decay  of  his  bodily 
powers.  During  the  three  last  months  of  his  life 
he  wrote  and  transcribed  for  the  press  a  considera- 
ble work,  comparing  the  principles  of  the  Grecian 
philosophy  with  those  of  revelation,  at  the  desire 


SERMON,  117 

of  the  President  of  the  United  States ;  and  in  the 
same  period,  in  twenty-four  hours,  he  composed  and 
transcribed  a  defence  of  the  proper  humanity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  in  reply  to  an  American  clergyman  who 
had  engaged  in  a  controversy  with  him  upon  that 
subject*^ 

On  the  sixth  of  February  last,  this  great  man  end- 
ed a  life  of  honourable,  persevering,  and  successful 
exertion  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  virtue,  and  without 
pain,  without  a  struggle,  and  even  without  a  sigh,  he 
gently  fell  asleep,  and  entered  upon  the  reward  of  his 
labours.  It  is  pleasing  to  add,  that  he  died  content 
and  thankful  for  all  he  had  enjoyed  in  life  ;  gratefully 
acknowledging  that  his  comforts  had  far  exceeded 
his  sufferingsf  ;  rejoicing  hi  the  conviction  that  he 
had  not  lived  in  vain ;.  thankful  for  the  calm  and 
easy  transition  with  which  he  was  indulged ;  and 
triumphing  in  the  glorious  hope  of  the  gospel ;  the 
hope  of  a  resurrection  to  immortal  Ufe  and  happi- 
ness. "  I  am  going  to  sleep,"  said  he  to  his  grand- 

*  Dr.  Linn,  a  i>resbyteri:in  minister.  This  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  an 
idle  rumour  wliich  has  been  industriously  circulated,  and  by  uninformed  pep- 
sons  readily  believed  ;  that  Dr.  Prit-stlcy,  after  his  removal  to  America,  had 
changed  his  opinions  concerning  the  person  of  Clirist. 

+  In  a  letter  to  a  friend,  dated  Nov.  4,  1803,  in  which  he  gives  an  account 
of  the  very  alarminj^  state  of  his  health,  and  of  his  expectation  of  a  speedy 
dissolution,  he  thus  expresses  himself: — "But  I  have  abundant  reason  to  he 
'■  satisfied  with  life,  and  with  the  goodness  of  God  in  it.  Few  have  had  so 
"  hnppy  a  lot  as  I  have  had,  and  I  now  see  reason  to  be  thankful  for  events 
"which  at  the  time  were  the  most  afflicting."  After  mentioning  a  severe 
affliction,  the  intelligence  of  w  liich  had  lately  an-ived,  he  adds :  ''  My  only 
"  source  of  satisfaction,  and  it  is  a  never-failing  one,  is  my  firm  persuasion 
"  that  every  thing,  and  our  oversights  among  the  rest,  are  parts  of  the  great 
"plan  ill  which  eveiT  thing  will  in  time  appear  to  have  been  ordered  and 
'•  conducted  in  the  best  maimer.  When  I  hear  my  own  children  cr>ing,  I 
"  consider  that  we  who  are  advanced  in  life  are  but  children  ourselves,  and 
"  as  little  judges  what  is  good  for  ourselves  or  others." 


118  SERMON. 

children,  when  brought  to  his  bed-side  to  take  leave 
of  hinn  the  evening  before  he  expired ;  "  I  am  go- 
"  ing  to  sleep  as  well  as  you  ;  for  death  is  only  a 
"  long  and  a  sound  sleep  in  the  grave  ;  but  we  shall 
"  meet  again  in  another  and  a  better  world." 

Thus  "  he  finished  his  course  with  joy,  and  ful- 
"  filled  the  ministry,"  which  from  the  purest  mo- 
tives, and  with  the  best  dispositions,  he  had  under- 
taken. "  Blessed  are  the  dead  who  thus  die  in  the 
"  Lord,  for  they  rest  from  their  labours,  and  their 
*'  works  follow  them."  Happy  they  who  being  stim- 
ulated to  emulate  this  great  example,  shall  be  admit- 
ted to  share  with  him  in  his  final  triumph  ! 

THE  END. 


r 


